It is understandable, but the key issue was that his predecessors moved their court west and forced themselves into being a western state. Their best movement forward is to essentially rule Mesopotamia and then rule over a collection of satrapies across the east beyond the Zagros. If they do expand west, it needs to be in the creation of new satrapies, not moving their entire court to a territory not conducive to governance of such a large empire. Especially when the Seleucids have serious threats emerging from the steppes to their north.
Plausibility check: was Alexander the Great's multi-ethnic empire ever viable like the Ottomans or Assyrians?
- Thread starter RousseauX
- Start date
It is understandable, but the key issue was that his predecessors moved their court west and forced themselves into being a western state. Their best movement forward is to essentially rule Mesopotamia and then rule over a collection of satrapies across the east beyond the Zagros. If they do expand west, it needs to be in the creation of new satrapies, not moving their entire court to a territory not conducive to governance of such a large empire. Especially when the Seleucids have serious threats emerging from the steppes to their north.
When you mean move west, I assume you mean the city of Antioch?
Yes, I would suggest staying within Mesopotamia, Seleucia, Babylon, Nippur, Isin, Sippar, Kurigalzu, etc... would have all worked better for imperial integrity than moving to Antioch on the Orontes.
RousseauX
Donor
she has 14 years to pull off something and the only thing she did accomplish was allying with perdicas in murdering Alexander's other wives immediately after his death. So she's not particularly talented
I'd just add here that our sources for the reign of Alexander are all very late- even Diodoros is three centuries after the man himself. Sure, they were drawing on sources that were considerably more contemporary, but I'd be very wary of extrapolating any "obvious" motivations to Alexander.
Anyway- I see no intrinsic reason why the Macedonian empire shouldn't have held together- as somebody else has suggested, the Caliphate did, with broadly similar boundaries. I think it'd be choppy water though, and I suspect any Argead state would've had the same problem as the Seleukids (and Caliphate) did, in terms of constant western distractions allowing steppe peoples in by the back door into Iran.
But the west, without hindsight, seems to support their imperial ideology and strategic interests better. It seemed far more glorious to Seleucid kings to attempt to reunite Alexander's empire and style themselves in the mode of the glorious conqueror, than to chase steppe barbarians across endless stretches of grassland. The Seleucids also thought they could control it with careful usage of vassalage, tribute, and occasional military expeditions, while Ptolemaic Egypt threatened the core empire far earlier.
She was essentially a pawn from the beginning with no real power, maybe not even a useful one. Her absolute best hope was that Alexander IV would end up under the tutelage of his grandmother and survive, or that the loyalists would win. Both of these hopes were dashed.
That is true, however it is not necessarily the case that the XXXIII Dynasty was seen even by the people at the time as the most prescient foe. Indeed, Seleucid policy required the usage of vassals and colonization efforts to maintain the frontier with the steppe. Seleucid rulers took the position as the guardians of civilization against the hordes of barbarians on all fronts, especially the north.
Meanwhile, as I take it, the Seleucids did not see the XXXIII Dynasty as someone that could truly destroy their realm. Rather, I take it, that they viewed the XXXIII Dynasty more as a weak foe, whom they could dominate simply with their demographic and territorial weight and hence integrate. Likewise, their interest in Italy, Greece and so forth was linked to a feeling that the Seleucids were the dominant Hellenic realm, able to enforce its hegemony with its massive size alone. However, such a massive size comes at a price and the Seleucids failed to correctly decipher their role. You cannot both be the protector of civilization and enemy of the steppe invaders (while they are strong and in a turbulent phase) and yet also seek adventurism into the west. At least, it is not advisable. If the Seleucids are not fell by the Dahae destroying their east, the Yuezhi will do so in short order. In otl, the Yuezhi were stronger than the Dahae and would be able to more critically smash the Seleucid state.
So as to the poster's question, had the Seleucids perhaps taken a more gregarious and diplomatic tone with west they could have done much better. For instance, using their protecting of civilization as a way to acquire tributes or simply as a way to receive some form of submission for others. All the while managing a colonization and policy of expansion in the east. The Seleucids can do this, they simply must find a more safe way to engage in their Alexandrine Legacy and in dealing with their immediate west.
Richard Drummond
Banned
I imagine Alexander's empire would see a Macedonian/Greek revolt against the 'foreign' influences affecting the Argead family.
RousseauX
Donor
I wonder if it's possible if the ruling elite is more Persianized the center of gravity of the empire shifts east. The Persian heartland should be fairly defensible right? Maybe they hold off the Parthians?
Weren't Macedonian successions infamously bloody? I wouldn't be surprised if the empire fell apart because a Basileus died and multiple adult sons then fought one another, each one creating his own little kingdom in the process. And that's without counting the generals...
The OP asked about a surviving Argead empire, which is quite different from OTL Seleucids.
It is more difficult to defend than one would imagine. In otl, if we are more fearful of enemies from the east, Mesopotamia is more defensible due to the Zagros mountains and the ability to use strategically various canals and riverways to slow invaders. In the southern section of Mesopotamia, enemies are often hampered by the swamplands straddling Elam and Sumer. There are multiple cases wherein enemies from the east had difficulties with foes in Mesopotamia due to some of these issues of geography and of natural barriers. Iran meanwhile is not as well protected naturally and it requires constant fortification and preventative action to maintain order to the northern frontiers and hence ensure safety to the realms in the center. Or, as the Asacids did, you need to possess a steppe nomadic army of sorts and simply vie for space in the traditional mode with the enemy steppe realms. The later Kushan state did some of both, sort of interacting with the wider steppe and integrating it peaceably in a form of co-opting.
Much of which the Argeads cannot do, they can only do as the Achaemenids did, that is preventative invasions, fortification, colonization and so forth to guard their Iranian fronts. Choosing Mesopotamia for a capitol however, gives him access to an ancient culture and kingly lineage older than that of Persia. Furthermore, it offers protections from the east with the Zagros hill country as a fail safe protection while not inhibiting projection of power into Iran. Not to mention, Mesopotamia is better placed to rule Syria, Egypt, Anatolia, Armenia and so forth.
Roxane was a minor wife NOT Alexander’s Queen, and the price she paid for eliminating her rivals was becoming a puppet of Perdiccas together with her child. Alexander’s Queen was without any doubt Stateira, who was Darius’ eldest daughter (and so granddaughter of Sisygambis, whose adoption was one of the main reason for Alexander’s quick acceptance as King of Kings. Plus the other two granddaughters of Sisygambis aka Stateira’s younger sister Drypetis and first cousin Amastris were married respectively to Hephaestion and Kraterus aka the two highest ranking among Alexander’s companions). The other Persian princess who Alexander married, Parysatis, was the youngest daughter of Artaxerxes III (aka Darius III’s predecessor) and she was most likely ranked between Stateira and Roxane (and if she and not Stateira gave a son to Alexander, she and her son would be likely able to keep power and their freedom, probably less easily than Stateira)
Exactly. She had made the worst possible choice for herself and her son because she wanted revenge over Alexander’s other wives (or at least over Stateira) and then was unable to get out of the mess she had contributed to make and ended losing her life together with her son
I suspect Alexander's dynasty would be accepted as legitimate rulers more than the Diadochi. For one, he made sure to marry into the previous ruling families. For two, they would have tremendous legitimacy as being the blood of the great conqueror themselves. Monarchy became a common form of stable rule all over the world for a reason.
The Seleucids have the central problem that that their population cores were at the two far ends of their empire and were very different cultures. They inevitably need to cement themselves at one end, and that will mean they lose the other. Any surviving Alexandrian Empire would have to just give up on the Indian territories I think. The rest of it: Persia, the Middle East, Anatolia, Greece, any conquests in Arabia, Italy or Africa, could largely all be kept under control from a Babylonian metropolis.
What about Stateira moving first? She was the one married to Alex, right? Or am I mixing her and her sister that married Hephaestion up?
Stateira was the one married to Alex. Her younger sister was called Drypetis. The point is who Stateira has absolutely no reason for killing Roxane or Parysatis. If she was truly pregnant and has a son then her son will be Alexander’s heir (at the worst not in Greece/Macedonia), if she has a daughter the girl will be the Queen of Roxane’s son. Stateira and Sisygamis need simply to not trust the messenger who called Stateira in Babylon in name of Alexander (who was already dead) or maybe they will not receive such message or receive first the news of Alexander’s death.
Kraterus is in a bad position right now, but Stateira’s survival and pregnancy would put him in a position more favorable than OTL as he was married to her cousin Amestris