WI/AHC: No wars of the Diadochi

As in the title, what if, with a POD around 324-325, the Greeks generals succeeding Alexander manage to divide the empire without the amount of violence experienced IOTL? This could mean you would have more players surviving and creating smaller realms, this could also mean the continuation of some campaigns in Arabia or North-Eastern Turkey.

Basically you still get a division but more smoothly and more coordinated. Obviously the 2 Argead successor would have to be removed from power even symbolically eventually.
 
Bump, what I wonder is what would happen to the weaker Satrapies, woukd they become subservient to the larger one even in this scenario?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
If you look at the actual course of the wars, it seems fairly obvious that only partity of power at an early stage could have prevented war. Ideally with divisions likely to be stable (meaning that invasions of the neighbours must be likely to result in failure).

I think you need a lot of the players to die early on, especially the ones prone to backstabbing. If three leading Diadokhoi survive (with a few of the lesser players swearing loyalty to them respectively), you can give the European holdings, Anatolia, Syria and the Levant to one; Persia (meaning Mesopotamia and everything east of it) to another; and Egypt to the third. The obvious set-up, close to OTL, would be Antigonos - Seleukos - Ptolemaios. But that's not a given.

A set-up like that is expecially different from OTL in that it sets Antigonos up to face fewer upstarts and competitors, leading his realm to presumably be stable. You end up with a truly Hellenistic Antigonid realm, a very Persian Seleukid realm, and a Ptolemaic Egypt that is very much like OTL (but which, due to the stronger Antigonids, never gets the chance to gain any foothold outside of Egypt itself). To each of these realms, its intial borders are quite defensible, and starting a war of conquest is likely to be a costly affair... and will probably end in failure.
 
If you look at the actual course of the wars, it seems fairly obvious that only partity of power at an early stage could have prevented war. Ideally with divisions likely to be stable (meaning that invasions of the neighbours must be likely to result in failure).

I think you need a lot of the players to die early on, especially the ones prone to backstabbing. If three leading Diadokhoi survive (with a few of the lesser players swearing loyalty to them respectively), you can give the European holdings, Anatolia, Syria and the Levant to one; Persia (meaning Mesopotamia and everything east of it) to another; and Egypt to the third. The obvious set-up, close to OTL, would be Antigonos - Seleukos - Ptolemaios. But that's not a given.

A set-up like that is expecially different from OTL in that it sets Antigonos up to face fewer upstarts and competitors, leading his realm to presumably be stable. You end up with a truly Hellenistic Antigonid realm, a very Persian Seleukid realm, and a Ptolemaic Egypt that is very much like OTL (but which, due to the stronger Antigonids, never gets the chance to gain any foothold outside of Egypt itself). To each of these realms, its intial borders are quite defensible, and starting a war of conquest is likely to be a costly affair... and will probably end in failure.
That what I was thinking, the idea of having an earlier POD could allow a death of Alexander where Krateros and the veterans would be able to participate in the talks and one where Perdicas didn't receive Alexander's favour, maybe Ptolemy OTL suggestion of dividing the territory woudl work if there is no male kid by Alexander as well, given people would go directly for the handicapped brother and they would see that the male line of the Argead is going to end.

The problem lies in the female line, I wonder if it could carry by itself enough prestige to make any marriage with the Diadochi a threat too big to other generals.

The problem with Antigonus being as strong as IOTL is that Leonnatos is still around, as is Krateros(though he didn't get a Satrapy IOTL he could ATL if Alexander dies before he's sent to replace Antipater) and those would be good contenders to Antigonus. Also I'm not sure Seleucus could gain power in Mesopotamia without getting rid of other older players, Peithon was relatively incompetent IOTL but he doesn't have tobe IATL, meaning Persia, Pakistan and Bactria could be behind him(but Mesopotamia would probably be under someone else's long term rule, not sure)

Also the question is, how would the satrapies be divided? I'm not sure how the decision was made IOTL, some parts like Antigonus getting Prygia make sense as he was previously Satrap there but what about the rest? Did Ptolemy have a particular fascination with Egypt or did he strategically choose the place? Or was it contingent on the court politics of IOTL?
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
If you look at the actual course of the wars, it seems fairly obvious that only partity of power at an early stage could have prevented war. Ideally with divisions likely to be stable (meaning that invasions of the neighbours must be likely to result in failure).

I think you need a lot of the players to die early on, especially the ones prone to backstabbing. If three leading Diadokhoi survive (with a few of the lesser players swearing loyalty to them respectively), you can give the European holdings, Anatolia, Syria and the Levant to one; Persia (meaning Mesopotamia and everything east of it) to another; and Egypt to the third. The obvious set-up, close to OTL, would be Antigonos - Seleukos - Ptolemaios. But that's not a given.

A set-up like that is expecially different from OTL in that it sets Antigonos up to face fewer upstarts and competitors, leading his realm to presumably be stable. You end up with a truly Hellenistic Antigonid realm, a very Persian Seleukid realm, and a Ptolemaic Egypt that is very much like OTL (but which, due to the stronger Antigonids, never gets the chance to gain any foothold outside of Egypt itself). To each of these realms, its intial borders are quite defensible, and starting a war of conquest is likely to be a costly affair... and will probably end in failure.
I would go with a four way split - Europe (Antipater / Cassander), Asia Minor and the Levant (Antigonus), Egypt (Ptolemy) and Persia and Bactria and the East (Seleukos). Seleukos gets distracted by border wars with the Mauryans and rebellions and his access to the West is fairly constrained anyway. Antigonos should be able to impose himself on Anatolia and possible extend into Armenia. Cassander and Antipater should be busy enough with the fractious Greeks (and the even more fractious Thracians) but with the gold mines and strongest source of good phalangites behind them should be strong enough. Ptolemy should be safe enough behind his desert borders.

It could be stable but it relies on all four believing it.
 
I would go with a four way split - Europe (Antipater / Cassander), Asia Minor and the Levant (Antigonus), Egypt (Ptolemy) and Persia and Bactria and the East (Seleukos). Seleukos gets distracted by border wars with the Mauryans and rebellions and his access to the West is fairly constrained anyway. Antigonos should be able to impose himself on Anatolia and possible extend into Armenia. Cassander and Antipater should be busy enough with the fractious Greeks (and the even more fractious Thracians) but with the gold mines and strongest source of good phalangites behind them should be strong enough. Ptolemy should be safe enough behind his desert borders.

It could be stable but it relies on all four believing it.
Why would Seleucus rise if Peithon, Perdicas and all the others are not removed by the various war preceding him becoming a satrap? Why would Antigonus gobble up the same territories when the POD literally removes years of wars preceding his OTL ascension?
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Why would Seleucus rise if Peithon, Perdicas and all the others are not removed by the various war preceding him becoming a satrap? Why would Antigonus gobble up the same territories when the POD literally removes years of wars preceding his OTL ascension?
Perdiccas was going to get "removed" war or no war - he wasn't exactly popular. If Perdiccas goes then Eumenes and Antigenes are likely to be next. Peithon vs Seleucus is a matter of who executes who first. I don't think you can have the Diadochii with no war - I think it's possible that you only have one short war followed by more stable kingdoms (at least excepting Seleucus' realm)
 
Perdiccas was going to get "removed" war or no war - he wasn't exactly popular. If Perdiccas goes then Eumenes and Antigenes are likely to be next. Peithon vs Seleucus is a matter of who executes who first. I don't think you can have the Diadochii with no war - I think it's possible that you only have one short war followed by more stable kingdoms (at least excepting Seleucus' realm)
If you don't think the scenario is possible then discuss that, no point in jumping over the entire premise of the AHC and going straight into what closely resembles OTL(up to the death of Antigonus I guess). You are assuming Perdicas is still in power, I find his early dominance to be a strong catalyst for conflict so instead of having him rule alone you could have power be divided from the start.

Seleucus had no holdings at the start and it took him opportunism against the failure that was Perdicas to gain any foothold, so the idea that his future dominance was somehow probable by the time of Alexander's death is dubious.
 
Bump, I also wonder about the attitudes of the Greeks towards the Persians if Alexander died before the marriages of Susa, IOTL it seems a lot of them ended in divorces anyway but if Alexander dies early there could be even more outright antagonism.
 
Top