What would a Diadochi State in Arabia look like?

Before Alexander the Great died he had ordered Nearchus to prepare a fleet and army in preparation for the invasion of Arabia. However he died before the conquest can take place and the effort was called off. But, what if he lived just long enough for the attack to take place, while dying shortly afterwards? Would Arabia become a fourth Diadochi Successor state or just become part of the Seluecid Empire? And who will be the leader? Nearchus?

Any thoughts?
 
Considering that the Levant and Mesopotamia are already parts of Diadochi states, I guess you mean Arabia proper - which probably has too small a population base to stand alone, though this is countered by low density making it impossible to conquer. If said state is centered around the Gulf Coast, I think it'll find it very difficult not to be part of the Seleucid empire. Conversely, a state centered in Yemen or the Hejaz might find it difficult to exert power on the other side of the peninsula, against a powerful Mesopotamia and Persia centered state (plus the Hejaz is awfully close to Egypt). So that leaves us with a state centered in Oman or the middle of the peninsula, which seems difficult considering that both locations were fairly unpopulated in Alexander's time (the population was precisely concentrated in all of the regions I said couldn't work :D )

That said, a Yemen-based diadochi state seems like it could probably maintain independence, even if it wouldn't be naturally looking to consolidate over Arabia, instead probably looking south and east, possible expanding into the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia and down the east African coast.

Which is pretty cool.
 
Considering that the Levant and Mesopotamia are already parts of Diadochi states, I guess you mean Arabia proper - which probably has too small a population base to stand alone, though this is countered by low density making it impossible to conquer. If said state is centered around the Gulf Coast, I think it'll find it very difficult not to be part of the Seleucid empire. Conversely, a state centered in Yemen or the Hejaz might find it difficult to exert power on the other side of the peninsula, against a powerful Mesopotamia and Persia centered state (plus the Hejaz is awfully close to Egypt). So that leaves us with a state centered in Oman or the middle of the peninsula, which seems difficult considering that both locations were fairly unpopulated in Alexander's time (the population was precisely concentrated in all of the regions I said couldn't work :D )

That said, a Yemen-based diadochi state seems like it could probably maintain independence, even if it wouldn't be naturally looking to consolidate over Arabia, instead probably looking south and east, possible expanding into the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia and down the east African coast.

Which is pretty cool.

Well I am thinking of a coastal Diadochi, which stretches down on the coast of the Persian Gulf, across the Arabian Sea across Yemen, and then up the red sea to near Sinai for the approximate borders of this particular Diadochi....would that be viable?
 
Well I am thinking of a coastal Diadochi, which stretches down on the coast of the Persian Gulf, across the Arabian Sea across Yemen, and then up the red sea to near Sinai for the approximate borders of this particular Diadochi....would that be viable?

Not in any respectable fashion I'd think. That's a lot of land to cover with very little power to project over it. Anyone who sets up shop in Yemen can hold Yemen, it'd be hard to do without outside backing but they could do it. But on their own they'd be confined to their territory, everything outside of modern day Yemen and eastern Oman is going to be desert or city-states with a strong independent streak. Sure you can send an expedition this way or that way and get anyone to recognize your suzerainty or even send tribute, but to be an integral part of the polity would be impossible operating as a foreign regime with foreign troops and foreign culture. Any Diadochi would have a hard time holding onto southern Arabia if they played their cards carelessly and expanding up the Red Sea coast would be a careless action.

An Arabian Diadochi could be a success story like the Ptolemies or decay with the times. It's a good position to play but only if you play it by consolidating rather than expanding.

Persian Gulf on the other hand is just asking for Seleucus or whoever comes into power in Eran and/or Mesopotamia to conquer it. Same problems as Yemen: low population, likely hostile population and a thorough lack of cultural commonalities, but without the added boon of just being so far out of the way no one cares about them. Anyone ruling along the Gulf coast could be an ally to anyone invading Mesopotamia, Yemen isn't sending any armies to anyone. Egypt is safe, Mesopotamia is safe, and if they stay out of Oman, Persia is safe. The state would be viable if it stook to itself, didn't flex it's muscles too much and held off any internal problems.
 
Not in any respectable fashion I'd think. That's a lot of land to cover with very little power to project over it. Anyone who sets up shop in Yemen can hold Yemen, it'd be hard to do without outside backing but they could do it. But on their own they'd be confined to their territory, everything outside of modern day Yemen and eastern Oman is going to be desert or city-states with a strong independent streak. Sure you can send an expedition this way or that way and get anyone to recognize your suzerainty or even send tribute, but to be an integral part of the polity would be impossible operating as a foreign regime with foreign troops and foreign culture. Any Diadochi would have a hard time holding onto southern Arabia if they played their cards carelessly and expanding up the Red Sea coast would be a careless action.

An Arabian Diadochi could be a success story like the Ptolemies or decay with the times. It's a good position to play but only if you play it by consolidating rather than expanding.

Persian Gulf on the other hand is just asking for Seleucus or whoever comes into power in Eran and/or Mesopotamia to conquer it. Same problems as Yemen: low population, likely hostile population and a thorough lack of cultural commonalities, but without the added boon of just being so far out of the way no one cares about them. Anyone ruling along the Gulf coast could be an ally to anyone invading Mesopotamia, Yemen isn't sending any armies to anyone. Egypt is safe, Mesopotamia is safe, and if they stay out of Oman, Persia is safe. The state would be viable if it stook to itself, didn't flex it's muscles too much and held off any internal problems.

Well I'm thinking of the Campaign as something akin to what is shown on the map attached, with the territories of the Diadochi State being approximately what is conquered, which stretches the territories I mentioned in the above post. But, if the natives cannot be suppressed and the aforementioned borders cannot be maintained then I guess it will only be limited to Yemen and Oman...

With it being the weakest Diadochi will they be ganged up on and destroyed or will they be able to play the Selucids and Ptolmies against each other? And if the Romans still rise (butterfly net in Arabia probably doesn't really affect Italy) how will this impact the Arabian Diadochi?

Also who is the most likely candidate to rule this Successor kingdom?

Edit....this map isn't working right now, sorry for that...:eek::(

Double Edit: since I completely failed at attaching a map to my post I have to steal someone else' map :(:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1497560&postcount=6

The bottome of the page has the map, the Arabian coastline is what I imagined the Diadochi kingdom will look like. Can the stretches be held on to plausibly or will ether break away?
 
Last edited:

ben0628

Banned
Before Alexander the Great died he had ordered Nearchus to prepare a fleet and army in preparation for the invasion of Arabia. However he died before the conquest can take place and the effort was called off. But, what if he lived just long enough for the attack to take place, while dying shortly afterwards? Would Arabia become a fourth Diadochi Successor state or just become part of the Seluecid Empire? And who will be the leader? Nearchus?

Any thoughts?


According to a few Wikipedia articles, the island that is now called Bahrain had a significantly large Greek population and was called Tylos. If Nearchus conquers this land as well as the rest of the gulf on the Arabian Peninsula and Northern Oman, you could see a significant state form if it can maintain naval dominance. The economy of the area at the time I believe primarily focused on date farming, pearl diving, and a little bit of mining (in Oman). If this country could also get some Indian or East African colonies/outposts it could become fairly wealthy and make up for its small population by using its wealth to have a large mercenary army. That being said, it would probably be eventually conquered by the Seleucids or some later kingdom in Persia.
 
According to a few Wikipedia articles, the island that is now called Bahrain had a significantly large Greek population and was called Tylos. If Nearchus conquers this land as well as the rest of the gulf on the Arabian Peninsula and Northern Oman, you could see a significant state form if it can maintain naval dominance. The economy of the area at the time I believe primarily focused on date farming, pearl diving, and a little bit of mining (in Oman). If this country could also get some Indian or East African colonies/outposts it could become fairly wealthy and make up for its small population by using its wealth to have a large mercenary army. That being said, it would probably be eventually conquered by the Seleucids or some later kingdom in Persia.


Personally I think Nearchus will have the biggest fleet around in the general area, as well as being the most powerful and most well trained, since before this there are simply no seafaring nations in this area. Assuming Nearchus does take over as a Diadochi (Nearchid?) I believe he could have taken control of much of coastal Arabia, and although the local opposition would have been fierce (or not-he might be able to play them against one another) they would've become Hellenized overtime IMO. Manpower will be an issue however, especially if they stick to only using soldiers of Greek descent like Ptolemy and Seleucus, and with a much smaller population base to begin with they might run into problems quickly.....but if the fleet still stands then I think the Nearchid dynasty will be safe-most of its cities are by the sea and to reach them by land will mean going through inhospitable desert-the attrition rate for any attacking army will be high.

Since in OTL Nearchus sided with Antigonus I like the idea of Nearchus safe in his Arabian Empire launching raids and spoiling attacks on Seleucus and Ptolemy, distracting them from helping Cassander and Lysimachus, perhaps allowing Antigonus to win against the latter? Then when the empire has been reunified Nearchus starts to explore new worlds, planting colonies in Africa, India, maybe even the East Indies and China even?:eek::p

Am I making sense or just having ASBs flapping their wings?
 
since before this there are simply no seafaring nations in this area.

There definitely were seafaring polities before Alexander the Great came along in the Persian gulf. However, Nearchus' interests in the aftermath of Alexander's death are likely to be on the Mediterranean, rather than the Persian Gulf. I can't but imagine that anything on the eastern coast of Arabia will fall into the orbit of whichever monarch holds Babylon, much as it did OTL.

The southern Arabian polities are likely to be their own Satrapy. The leader of this Satrapy will be decided at one of the several partitions that the generals or king will oversee - however if this leader manages to stay afloat amidst local politics is another story.

Let's say this Greek officer who is assigned to rule the Sabaeans survives and prospers. He settles some veterans and gets them sizable estates producing incense and becomes rich off of the trade lanes. By virtue of his position he'll know much of India and parts of the East African coast. He'll probably even have rumors of China and the world beyond. But I can't fathom why he'd want to go visit there personally, not when he has the wealth of the east flowing through his fingers.
 
Before Alexander the Great died he had ordered Nearchus to prepare a fleet and army in preparation for the invasion of Arabia. However he died before the conquest can take place and the effort was called off. But, what if he lived just long enough for the attack to take place, while dying shortly afterwards? Would Arabia become a fourth Diadochi Successor state or just become part of the Seluecid Empire? And who will be the leader? Nearchus?

Any thoughts?

The main problem is Arabia had not belonged to the Achaemenid Empire. And Alexander the Great did not conquer such countries in OTL.

The pattern of his conquest was, his message was:
- 'before you were ruled by the Achaemenid shahinshah and the Persians, now I will be instead the shahinshah and the Macedonians will replace the Persians; everything else will stay the same'.
That is of course a simplification, but close.

But the Arabian entities had never been ruled by a foreign power, they had never been a part of any Empire.
And from what we know they were fiercely independent.
So the old pattern of Alexander won't work here, no way. These are different circumstances. Different pattern.
This is not about having new Macedonian overlords instead of previous Persian ones. That is about losing your freedom. And usually that's a long and painful process, with setbacks and rebellions.

So the most probable scenario is - the richest coastal parts of Arabia are conquered by Alexander the Great: some after fierce resistance and huge losses for the invaders and the invaded, some without fight horrified and overwhelmed by the Grand Army and the Grand Fleet.
They are properly taxed and the Macedonian/Greek garrisons are placed in the most strategically important places.

The moment Alexander the Great dies all Arabia is in revolt and most of the Macedonians/Greeks are massacred.
You know the diadochi fought against other diadochi mostly; meaning those who win get the territory; those were the rules of the game.
In Arabia it won't be that way, there you have to conquer the country anew. It's not worth the effort.
So the Arabian polities will get independent again.

The only way for Arabia to stay inside the Hellenistic World is heavy Hellenization of the peninsula by Alexander the Great, the Greeks settled there in huge quantities, making them more numerous than the locals.
But that's not too probable, because you know Arabia is rich and is favorably situated, but what makes it better than say Mesopotamia or Syria or any other prosperous part of the Empire?
 
The "Persian Gulf" cities had been a part of the Iranian Achaemenid Empire... being conquered by the Makedonians would just be a return to form.

As for the rest of them, what record is there that they were "fiercely independent?" What sources are there for that? The Sabaeans were the time were a loose federation under a ruler called the mukkarib, a word that doesn't mean King exactly. (That's m-l-k) Loose federations can sometimes easily be divided.

The Sabaean world was politically, but not economically, distinct from the greater world. It was mostly dependent on ports - ports that wouldn't necessitate any exhausting inland campaign. The inland cities, meanwhile, depended on elaborate hydraulics - and hydraulics are relatively easy to maintain control of for ruling forces.
 
The main problem is Arabia had not belonged to the Achaemenid Empire. And Alexander the Great did not conquer such countries in OTL.

The pattern of his conquest was, his message was:
- 'before you were ruled by the Achaemenid shahinshah and the Persians, now I will be instead the shahinshah and the Macedonians will replace the Persians; everything else will stay the same'.
That is of course a simplification, but close.

But the Arabian entities had never been ruled by a foreign power, they had never been a part of any Empire.
And from what we know they were fiercely independent.
So the old pattern of Alexander won't work here, no way. These are different circumstances. Different pattern.
This is not about having new Macedonian overlords instead of previous Persian ones. That is about losing your freedom. And usually that's a long and painful process, with setbacks and rebellions.

So the most probable scenario is - the richest coastal parts of Arabia are conquered by Alexander the Great: some after fierce resistance and huge losses for the invaders and the invaded, some without fight horrified and overwhelmed by the Grand Army and the Grand Fleet.
They are properly taxed and the Macedonian/Greek garrisons are placed in the most strategically important places.

The moment Alexander the Great dies all Arabia is in revolt and most of the Macedonians/Greeks are massacred.
You know the diadochi fought against other diadochi mostly; meaning those who win get the territory; those were the rules of the game.
In Arabia it won't be that way, there you have to conquer the country anew. It's not worth the effort.
So the Arabian polities will get independent again.

The only way for Arabia to stay inside the Hellenistic World is heavy Hellenization of the peninsula by Alexander the Great, the Greeks settled there in huge quantities, making them more numerous than the locals.
But that's not too probable, because you know Arabia is rich and is favorably situated, but what makes it better than say Mesopotamia or Syria or any other prosperous part of the Empire?

The "Persian Gulf" cities had been a part of the Iranian Achaemenid Empire... being conquered by the Makedonians would just be a return to form.

As for the rest of them, what record is there that they were "fiercely independent?" What sources are there for that? The Sabaeans were the time were a loose federation under a ruler called the mukkarib, a word that doesn't mean King exactly. (That's m-l-k) Loose federations can sometimes easily be divided.

The Sabaean world was politically, but not economically, distinct from the greater world. It was mostly dependent on ports - ports that wouldn't necessitate any exhausting inland campaign. The inland cities, meanwhile, depended on elaborate hydraulics - and hydraulics are relatively easy to maintain control of for ruling forces.

Since my knowledge on this area is probably not as detailed as yours, I am just going to add that I don't think military resistance by the locals even if they were to fight with everything they had to be overly effective against the Macedonian army that had already steamrolled much more powerful empires and crushed much superior armies. They just had to seize the rich coastal cities and root out resistance around the coastal areas, and the inland areas will wither up without anything to support it. I doubt "heavy casualties" on the side of the Macedonians, and if the locals can see how everything has turned out for the better under Greek control then Hellenziation can still take effect.

There definitely were seafaring polities before Alexander the Great came along in the Persian gulf. However, Nearchus' interests in the aftermath of Alexander's death are likely to be on the Mediterranean, rather than the Persian Gulf. I can't but imagine that anything on the eastern coast of Arabia will fall into the orbit of whichever monarch holds Babylon, much as it did OTL.

The southern Arabian polities are likely to be their own Satrapy. The leader of this Satrapy will be decided at one of the several partitions that the generals or king will oversee - however if this leader manages to stay afloat amidst local politics is another story.

Let's say this Greek officer who is assigned to rule the Sabaeans survives and prospers. He settles some veterans and gets them sizable estates producing incense and becomes rich off of the trade lanes. By virtue of his position he'll know much of India and parts of the East African coast. He'll probably even have rumors of China and the world beyond. But I can't fathom why he'd want to go visit there personally, not when he has the wealth of the east flowing through his fingers.

Well in this scenario Alex died while the conquest is already decided but not yet finished, and so Nearchus stays and finishes the conquest, with the other Diadochi being set up more or less like OTL. If he were to go back to the Mediterranean he will not only lose his powerful Indian fleet, his most poplar base of support, as well as becoming a sattelite of either Ptolemy, Seleucus, or Antigonus-which I doubt he wants. So consolidating Arabia into a fourth Diadochi he aligns himself with Antigonus as OTL, and perhaps seize Seleucid and Ptolemy lands with his fleet, while planting colonies?

Sorry if I keep going back to seemingly the same thing but I just want to see if my idea is plausible.
 
My point is that in OTL, after Alexander's death Nearchus did indeed abandon his fleet to make a failed power play regarding the succession. Later he was an adviser to the court of Demetrius. If he was really tied to the fleet or thought it would buy him significant influence, I doubt he'd have done that even OTL without Arabia to defend.

If you really want Nearchus to be the satrap of "Tylos" that can probably be arranged, but it seems more probable to me that he is kept on as a naval officer, being that he's from Crete and satrapal offices tended to go to Macedonians or loyal natives. If at any point he was made Satrap, he'd lose command over the fleet.

Neither Seleucus' or Ptolemies' dominions could be easily captured by a fleet. The main utility of a navy, actually, would be transporting soldiers around between Mesopotamia and the Indus if by some miracle the Makedonians remain somewhat united. If not, it'll still be used to ferry troops about but probably less.
 
My point is that in OTL, after Alexander's death Nearchus did indeed abandon his fleet to make a failed power play regarding the succession. Later he was an adviser to the court of Demetrius. If he was really tied to the fleet or thought it would buy him significant influence, I doubt he'd have done that even OTL without Arabia to defend.

If you really want Nearchus to be the satrap of "Tylos" that can probably be arranged, but it seems more probable to me that he is kept on as a naval officer, being that he's from Crete and satrapal offices tended to go to Macedonians or loyal natives. If at any point he was made Satrap, he'd lose command over the fleet.

Neither Seleucus' or Ptolemies' dominions could be easily captured by a fleet. The main utility of a navy, actually, would be transporting soldiers around between Mesopotamia and the Indus if by some miracle the Makedonians remain somewhat united. If not, it'll still be used to ferry troops about but probably less.

Sorry for not making myself clear :( (no sarcasm)

I am not talking about Nearchus becoming Satrap, he just became the De Facto leader of the region when Alex died while Arabia is still being pacified, and when the land generals took off (who would be the guys in charge for the invasion anyhow?) while he is still at sea, he became the only significant Macedonian presence in the area, and just worked to secure the coasts of Arabia as per Alex' wish. By now though the other Diadochi will have set up as OTL (maybe with some minor differences but still recognizable) and Nearchus realizes that now he doesn't have much of a chance if he abandons his navy and his only base of support, something he did not have OTL. So he stays, not as appointed satrap, but as an admiral that only happened to be at the right place at the right time (or wrong place and wrong time depending on point of view) that just took control of the Empire's newest possessions.

Well Egypt has its Red Sea coast to plunder and raid from and the Seleucids have their Arabian Sea dominions to raid, and maybe take possession of, just to distract and annoy the two as Antigonus figures something out....and if Antigonus does succeed then a reunified (somewhat) Empire is certainly possible IMO.
 
Sure, that makes sense. My only concerns would be that Nearchus lacks the force of will, status, and charisma necessary to keep the fleet loyal, and that one of the other prominent Diadochi in this timeline will basically co-opt him and/or his fleet to their own ends.

Otherwise though, you seem like you have a plan far how you want the timeline to go, if you want to take that step. ;)
 
The most likely candidate for a Diadochi successor state in the Arabian peninsula is one based in Yemen. That is the only spot with a significant agricultural base. From there, it could extend direct or indirect territorial control over the Hedjaz and Oman.

The Persian Gulf coastal area is too far away to be ruled in Yemen. Historically, it was dominated by the Persians. So whoever ruled the lands there or in Mesopotamia would be better place to administer that area.

Likewise, a Yemenese state would be separate from any of the other states. They are all too distant to administer Yemen.

A state in Yemen with a Greek administration would be well placed to dominate much of the trade with India. And it spread Greek influence to Ethiopia and possibly spark trade along the African coast.
 
The most likely candidate for a Diadochi successor state in the Arabian peninsula is one based in Yemen. That is the only spot with a significant agricultural base. From there, it could extend direct or indirect territorial control over the Hedjaz and Oman.

The Persian Gulf coastal area is too far away to be ruled in Yemen. Historically, it was dominated by the Persians. So whoever ruled the lands there or in Mesopotamia would be better place to administer that area.

Likewise, a Yemenese state would be separate from any of the other states. They are all too distant to administer Yemen.
A regime with a capital in Yemen has a wealthier heartland agricultural population than a regime with capital in Medina.
 
Top