Seleucus takes Macedon.

What if Ptolemy Keraunos failed in his assassination attempt on Seleucus and instead Seleucus conquers Makedonia? Would the empire last longer with a more stable recruiting base. Could Antiochus Soter then conquer Egypt, reuniting the empire?
 
I think even one year is enough for a reunited Alexandriad Basileia.
Antiochus I is a very competent king, with the manpower of Macedon and the richness of Syria-Iran he should be able to rush to Alexandria.

If the Seleucids ITTL become as stable as they were IOTL, then... well, a stable Eastern Empire would probably butterfly any Roman and Carthaginian expansion east of the Adriatic Sea, never mind if the Macedonians become restless for adventures again.
 

Toraach

Banned
I think even one year is enough for a reunited Alexandriad Basileia.
Antiochus I is a very competent king, with the manpower of Macedon and the richness of Syria-Iran he should be able to rush to Alexandria.

If the Seleucids ITTL become as stable as they were IOTL, then... well, a stable Eastern Empire would probably butterfly any Roman and Carthaginian expansion east of the Adriatic Sea, never mind if the Macedonians become restless for adventures again.
And a celtic invasion in next year... not a good perspectives for Arche Seleukeia.
 
And a celtic invasion in next year... not a good perspectives for Arche Seleukeia.
Well, Seleucid armies will necessarily be posted in Makedon just to make sure its not rebelling from the distant Imperial metropolis of Babylon, so I think OTL Macedonian complete shattering in the face of Galatians won't happen.
Shame this means no thureophoroi I guess. My favourite hellenistic soldier type.
 
In this scenario, he lives to be 88, or until 270 BC.
That leaves enough time for him to have a go at conquering Egypt. He might just be able to succeed at reuiniting Alexanders empire. Holding it all will be tough though and will get tougher when he dies and Antiochus has to put out fire after fire erupting everywhere.
 
That leaves enough time for him to have a go at conquering Egypt. He might just be able to succeed at reuiniting Alexanders empire. Holding it all will be tough though and will get tougher when he dies and Antiochus has to put out fire after fire erupting everywhere.
I think that perhaps instead of directly annexing Egypt, they could establish a vassal native dynasty there. As for Macedon, a son can be made a vassal king of it and the rest of the east goes to the heir. That might help to hold the empire.
 
I think that perhaps instead of directly annexing Egypt, they could establish a vassal native dynasty there.
They could, sure, but why would they, at least initially? This wasn't something the Persians tried, nor was it something Alexander thought about. More importantly, it was not until it was a necessity due to weakness (chaos in Asia Minor, losing sway in the far East) that they began to rely on foreign leaders for control. Also it still isn't for 50 years iotl until the Egyptians were able/willing to pull off an uprising, so the necessity might not even be there. There's also a very large Greek community that has been flooding into colonies sponsored by Ptolemy that will not want to he ruled by an Egyptian king.

Of far more worry in Egypt early on is probably a breakaway state led by whatever Macedonian satrap is appointed rather than an Egyptian uprising. I do wonder how Seleucid rule might go however-do they just co-opt the Ptolemaic two tier justice system that treats Greeks and Egyptians differently, separate courts and all? Or do they try and integrate the Egyptians?

As for Macedon, a son can be made a vassal king of it and the rest of the east goes to the heir
That doesn't deal with the initial problems they will occur in Macedonia-the Celtic invasion, whatever subsequent power vacuum that may create, Pyrrhus of Epirus, the continued presence of Antigonus Gonatas, and the semi autonomous state of the city states. That region is still a powder keg and a resource sink.

Antiochus is an only son as well.
 
I do wonder how Seleucid rule might go however-do they just co-opt the Ptolemaic two tier justice system that treats Greeks and Egyptians differently, separate courts and all?

I think so. It's was relatively similar to how the Seleucids treated every other region under their domain, no? A lot of areas had self-governance, just on an extremely local level and usually tied to local low-level elites and religious figures. I expect Egypt's higher-order government would be similarly splintered. A "democratic" council in Alexandria and a couple satrapies, none of whom have authority over any other one.

The Seleucids were actually pretty good at avoiding indigenous revolts. How many times did Babylon, Syria, Phyrgia, Persia etc. actually rise up against them - after the early years? Most of their threats were either external polities or based around Greeks and Hellenized peoples.
 
I think so. It's was relatively similar to how the Seleucids treated every other region under their domain, no? A lot of areas had self-governance, just on an extremely local level and usually tied to local low-level elites and religious figures. I expect Egypt's higher-order government would be similarly splintered. A "democratic" council in Alexandria and a couple satrapies, none of whom have authority over any other one.

The Seleucids were actually pretty good at avoiding indigenous revolts. How many times did Babylon, Syria, Phyrgia, Persia etc. actually rise up against them - after the early years? Most of their threats were either external polities or based around Greeks and Hellenized peoples.
Correct, but the extreme distance of Makedonia and Seleucid transient control of Asia Minor that may or may not be strengthened in this TL stand as big-time problems.
 
Top