The Diadochi

During the Indian Campaign, Alexander the Great's wife Roxane gave birth to a son who died soon after birth in 326 B.C. WI this son (who we'll call *Alexander IV) managed to survive? Assuming that Alexander dies in 323 B.C. as in OTL, how will things play out?

Obviously there are going to be plenty of civil wars in the near future in this scenario amongst the Macedonian generals as in OTL, but I imagine there would have been more of a chance for some sort of stable regency to emerge if there was already an acknowledged heir, rather than an eventual posthumous son being born and everyone playing the waiting game. After all, Roxane was known to be quite ruthless, and now her position is far more secure and she and any potential allies are in a far better (i.e. more legitimate) position in Babylon to seize power.

Is there any way for this *Alexander IV to eventually attain his majority and rule something of his patrimony, assuming he manages to have the strength of will to do so? A while back, I wrote several versions of my TL about a surviving Argead Empire, and I'm considering a re-write in which *Alexander IV grows to adulthood and somehow secures control of at least Persia, Anatolia and Syria, assuming this is at all possible.

Please, I'd love to hear your thoughts, as I don't think anyone has ever considered this POD here, to my knowledge at least.

Thanks,
Endymion
 
Last edited:
On a related note... Is there a way that the empire, or more realisticaly, more, would well, have remained more united or in ONE block after Alexander's death, frankly?

Maybe distant regions off, but a way more united and stable block..
 
Well, it comes down to if Alexander or Roxane would be able to establish the empire as being under a unified law and order and various parts of the empire stay loyal to it. In the case of OTL because no one was able to fill Alexander's shoes and he died before a legit heir being nominated by him the various Generals saw it as a opportunity to carve out realms for themselves. I am not sure but how bound by law were the various generals that soon set up their own states? Did they have previous power to or did they just do it because Alexander's death lead to civil war?
 
Well, it comes down to if Alexander or Roxane would be able to establish the empire as being under a unified law and order and various parts of the empire stay loyal to it. In the case of OTL because no one was able to fill Alexander's shoes and he died before a legit heir being nominated by him the various Generals saw it as a opportunity to carve out realms for themselves. I am not sure but how bound by law were the various generals that soon set up their own states? Did they have previous power to or did they just do it because Alexander's death lead to civil war?

They had armies, Macedonian succession has been messy as long as there's been a Macedon, and the situation encouraged seizing authority.

Having an underaged kid as the heir of Alexander the Pretty Stupid isn't going to help.

If, and this is a huge if, he has honest regents, he might survive to adulthood and be acknowledged as king of Macedon and whatever that holds on to of the empire.
 

Tsao

Banned
During the Indian Campaign, Alexander the Great's wife Roxane gave birth to a son who died soon after birth in 326 B.C. WI this son (who we'll call *Alexander IV) managed to survive? Assuming that Alexander dies in 323 B.C. as in OTL, how will things play out?

Obviously there are going to be plenty of civil wars in the near future in this scenario amongst the Macedonian generals as in OTL, but I imagine there would have been more of a chance for some sort of stable regency to emerge if there was already an acknowledged heir, rather than an eventual posthumous son being born and everyone playing the waiting game. After all, Roxane was known to be quite ruthless, and now her position is far more secure and she and any potential allies are in a far better (i.e. more legitimate) position in Babylon to seize power.

Is there any way for this *Alexander IV to eventually attain his majority and rule something of his patrimony, assuming he manages to have the strength of will to do so? A while back, I wrote several versions of my TL about a surviving Argead Empire, and I'm considering a re-write in which *Alexander IV grows to adulthood and somehow secures control of at least Persia, Anatolia and Syria, assuming this is at all possible.

Please, I'd love to hear your thoughts, as I don't think anyone has ever considered this POD here, to my knowledge at least.

Thanks,
Endymion

Didn't he already have a son?
 
Didn't he already have a son?
Okay, in OTL, Alexander certainly had one son by Roxane (who in OTL became Alexander IV, only to be murdered before he came of age in 310BC)... but he was yet to be born when Alex karked it in 323BC. It's believed he had a illegitimate son, Herakles, with the Persian noblewoman Barsine (this son died aged about 17 in 309BC... so born about 326BC).

In OTL Herakles was quickly rejected from the sucession, while Alex IV ended up sharing it with Philip III Arrhidaeus (Alex III's half brother, usually believed to have had some form of mental or physical disability, thus rendering him not a threat to Alex III after Philip II's death...).

So, the PoD for this scenario is that Alex concieves a son with Roxane earlier and/or said son survives (there's suggestion in one source, the Metz Epitome that Roxane and Alex may have had a son that died in infancy circa 326BC but that source is from much later, and so should be treated with caution).

So, in answer to your question, either no or one bastard dependent on the exact date of PoD.
 
It's to the Metz Epitome I was referring, actually:

Meanwhile the son of Alexander and Rhoxane had died. He entombed him and offered sacrifices, before setting out for the Ocean, he reconciled Porus and Taxiles, uniting them with a marriage alliance.

This was (reportedly) in the summer of 326 B.C. in the Indus Valley. My POD is essentially WI this son manages to survive infancy.

A few thoughts...

-Alexander would probably have already designated *Alexander IV his heir in his testament
-Much of the army has been reformed and includes many Persian soldiers at this point (with many veterans having been settled or sent home).
-*Alexander IV is half-Persian and his maternal grandfather is Satrap of Bactria at this point. The Persian nobility are going to be far more sympathetic to her son than another foreign Macedonian who has nothing but contempt for their culture.
-Perdiccas is probably going to support *Alexander IV as he did with Roxane and her unborn child in OTL, and his position as regent is going to be far stronger as there is no waiting period for a posthumous son.
-Antipater is probably going to rebel and seize Macedon, where he's already popular and ruling as regent. Craterus may or may not support the child king, and Ptolemy probably won't, as he disliked the idea of a "half-breed" king.

What does everyone think?
 
It's to the Metz Epitome I was referring, actually:



This was (reportedly) in the summer of 326 B.C. in the Indus Valley. My POD is essentially WI this son manages to survive infancy.

A few thoughts...

-Alexander would probably have already designated *Alexander IV his heir in his testament

The cynical response below. Source: Alexander the Great Failure by John D. Grainger.

497-454: Alexander I rules;
454-430: The kingdom breaks up;
430-413: Peridkkas II's sole rule;
413: A royal bloodbath;
413-399: Archelaos's rule;
399-391: Royal succession dispute;
391-370: Amyntas III's rule.

And this without underaged heirs. This is a terribly discouraging history for Macedon being stable, let alone a foreign empire just conquered that strongly resents the Macedonians.

-Much of the army has been reformed and includes many Persian soldiers at this point (with many veterans having been settled or sent home).
And...so....?

-*Alexander IV is half-Persian and his maternal grandfather is Satrap of Bactria at this point. The Persian nobility are going to be far more sympathetic to her son than another foreign Macedonian who has nothing but contempt for their culture.
So instead of rejecting him immediately, they wait and see before regarding him as the son of Alexander the Destroyer, servant of the Lie, or not. How reassuring.

-Perdiccas is probably going to support *Alexander IV as he did with Roxane and her unborn child in OTL, and his position as regent is going to be far stronger as there is no waiting period for a posthumous son.
True so far as it goes, I suppose. But Alexander IV is still all of three. This is not promising.

-Antipater is probably going to rebel and seize Macedon, where he's already popular and ruling as regent. Craterus may or may not support the child king, and Ptolemy probably won't, as he disliked the idea of a "half-breed" king.

What does everyone think?
That this kid is going to be murdered. :(
 
...And this without underaged heirs. This is a terribly discouraging history for Macedon being stable, let alone a foreign empire just conquered that strongly resents the Macedonians.
Agreed that the odds are against Alexander's son in this scenario. Even Alexander did away with his infant half-brother in OTL. But one cannot be blamed for trying ;)

And...so....?
A more cosmopolitan army, drawn from the many Persian and Asian subjects of the empire is going to be even slightly more sympathetic to a half-Persian king than a bunch of Macedonian veterans who despise everything they see as "Oriental". Besides, it was Macedonian custom at this time for the army to play a part in the confirmation of the king's accession.

So instead of rejecting him immediately, they wait and see before regarding him as the son of Alexander the Destroyer, servant of the Lie, or not. How reassuring.
Contrary to popular belief, Alexander was never really unpopular with the Persians after the defeat of Darius III. He treated their nobility well and made efforts to adopt many of their customs. The whole "Aleskandar the Destroyer" myth didn't really emerge until the Sassanid period.
 
Agreed that the odds are against Alexander's son in this scenario. Even Alexander did away with his infant half-brother in OTL. But one cannot be blamed for trying ;)

Yeah. If you by some good fortune get loyal and competent men who want to prop him up, his chances significantly improve, both of survival and amounting to anything.

But for Athena's sake, I hope he takes after his grandfather rather than his father. Someone with Philip's gifts is a lot more important than another warlord if you want to overcome the chaos and really forge something out of it - or even preserve a strong Macedon.

A more cosmopolitan army, drawn from the many Persian and Asian subjects of the empire is going to be even slightly more sympathetic to a half-Persian king than a bunch of Macedonian veterans who despise everything they see as "Oriental". Besides, it was Macedonian custom at this time for the army to play a part in the confirmation of the king's accession.
This is true. But I'm not sure that's going to be enough in these circumstances - its a good thing to have if you can overcome the ones with the poor kid's own survival, though.

Contrary to popular belief, Alexander was never really unpopular with the Persians after the defeat of Darius III. He treated their nobility well and made efforts to adopt many of their customs. The whole "Aleskandar the Destroyer" myth didn't really emerge until the Sassanid period.
The problem is that while Iskander might have been liked well enough by the nobility, the mass of the people aren't eager for foreign Macedonian rule - and unless Alexander the Younger (Alexander IV) manages to balance both the Macedonians who are barely above savagery* and the Persians, he's in trouble.

That's the problem. OTL, the response to Macedonian rule was "how can we get rid of this". And of course, having a barbarian invasion of your country is rarely welcome by those on the bleeding end.

Whether it was directed at Alexander personally or not, Alexander is the leader who lead these savages to burn and sack and so on. So I'm using Alexander the Destroyer to emphasis that, rather than the western-centric Alexander the Great.

When the Seleucids try and fail to handle the issues of ruling the east (for a variety of reasons, but Alexander IV and heirs will have to face most of them), despite ruling about as well as one could ask for or expect considering, whether the idea that Alexander was the antiChrist comes from the Sassanids or the survivors is not enough to make up for the fact satraps refusing to support the Macedonians won't be uncommon or unpopular amongst their subjects.

* I'm something of a Persophile, but more importantly, I'm something of an imperialist in the sense of for the empire (just as someone pro-nation is a nationalist) - and the Macedonians were too uncosmopolitan, and just plain too uneducated and unsophisticated in terms of their understanding of government and empires and so on.
 
Dreams...

Long before Alexander's death,and at an evening in Persepolis,Cleitos,along with other leadind Macedonians, had complained to Alexander about bestowing so many honors to barbarians,and further that the Macedonians whished a heir to the Macedonian throne by Alexander and a Macedonian princess not half blood children...this topic of discussion was raised repeatedly and was discussed widely among Macedonians and other Greeks even in the presence of Alexander.What happened to Arrideos Alexandros later,proves that any child born to Alexander by Roxana(who was not even true blue Persian) didn't have a chance in a million.
Stageira,the young wife of Darius had a better aura of acceptability among Macedonians,but taking into account that Macedon held a hegemony status among other leading Greek states including Athens and Sparta who still had great influence among other Greek States,and their laws didn't allow citizenship to half bloods,how would they face a half blood Macedonianleader who would one day try to claim supremacy over the other Greeks? highly doubtful...
 
My guess is that the son would be the Er Shi Huangdi to Alexander's Qin Shi Huang. The Alexandrine Empire was far too big for the Macedonians to rule as a single bloc, given that the largest descendant of that empire, the Seleucids, was the one that broke up the most rapidly. Alexander's son would be required to have the political skills of a Bismarck, Richelieu, and Caesar Augustus blended into one unholy package of Marty Stu to make it possible for this to endure past Alexander the Great.

This is less an indictment of him and more the reality of big empires at that time. As a competent ruler, however, he could very easily make the ATL equivalent of the Antigonid state a serious rival to the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
 
Top