WI Alexander an heir and a spare

KingKulami

Banned
Alexander of Greece fathers two Heirs for his kingdom. Instead of his kingdom being split between generals his heir takes control on those areas.
What effects?
 

Jasen777

Donor
One problem is that if Alexander doesn't live longer (it would introduce alot of changes if he did) then his heir(s) aren't going to be of age when he dies.

In fact, he did have an heir and that was the case.
 
thats not really a problem, they would simply wear the official tittle but their family, some general or some priests would rule instead
hapened all the time

the problem is avoiding them being killed right after alexandar dies

id guess a lot would depend on what etnicity theyr mothers are
a greek son would be used as a banner by the greek generals and inherit probably macedonia, anatolia, parts of persia, maybe egipt

a persian son would be greeted by the persian part of the oligarchy as a new shah, suposed to rule ower all the ex-persian empire

id say its likely they would be suported rather than killed as rallying around an actuall heir would give real political and religious legitimacy to any political claim ider side might make, and as children they would easily be used

then again theres the possibility of asasination of one by the other side, in wich case you have olnly one heir, wich simplifies things, as long as his side can still win the war

ider way there would be a lot of war
 
more information would be helpful. We can draw general conclusions, but more specifics are required for an accurate picture of TTL.
 
He already had two sons when he died (Herakles, son of Berenice, and Alexander IV, son of Roxana). Simply have him live longer to have one of them come to power.
 
Alexander DID had heirs... The only problem is that he died young while his children were still minors... So the greedy Generals raised the mentally disturbed Philippe III to the throne while they arranged some "accidents" for Alexander's sons...
Same thing would have happened if Philippe II died young while Alexander was a minor...
 
The macedonian throne was not one that got herited. The king got elected usually. Of course the times where not the same as when alexanders father got the throne. But the idea of inheriting a throne was not boosted by an age destroying all known traditions.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The macedonian throne was not one that got herited. The king got elected usually. Of course the times where not the same as when alexanders father got the throne. But the idea of inheriting a throne was not boosted by an age destroying all known traditions.

Yup, the fact that the Macedonian throne was elective would rule out Alexander's heirs to rule Macedonia proper. Usually some of the last king's son or brothers was elceted, but there is no way they would elect a child. However in alexander's eastern posessions the situation was different. The heir could have inherited all the Persian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Egyptian and even some Anatolian land, but that would require that Alexander's generals would support the heir. If they don't there was no chance.
 
Alexander of Greece fathers two Heirs for his kingdom. Instead of his kingdom being split between generals his heir takes control on those areas.
What effects?
This is actually very near OTL... Shortly after Alexander the great's demise there were actually three potential heir to his throne from the Argead dynasty... two of whom actually did suceed him:
1. Philip III, Alexander III's half brother, surviving records suggest he was mentally and possibly physically handicapped (hence why he survived the blood-letting after his father's assasination).
2. Alexander IV, Alexander's only legitimate son (born after Alex III died), half Persian.
3. Herakles, Alexander's illegitimate son, half Persian.

In OTL Herakles was rapidly excluded (Half-Persian and a bastard to boot) while Philip III (with the support of the Macedonian 'guts' of the army) and Alexander IV (with the support of many of Alexander's 'marshals') were placed on the throne as co-rulers... but one being an infant and the other an idiot neither of them served as anything more than puppets. Both met sticky ends within (IIRC) 15 years of Alexander the Great's demise.

So, what you actually need is to keep Alexander the Great alive long enough for Alexander IV's or Herakles' position (Philip III is out as given the choice I'm certain Alexander III would select one of his own children) to solidify.
 
He already had two sons when he died (Herakles, son of Berenice, and Alexander IV, son of Roxana). Simply have him live longer to have one of them come to power.

Heracles was IMO on balance probably an ancient Perkin Warbeck, and Alexander IV was still in the womb at Alexander's death.

yourworstnightmare said:
but there is no way they would elect a child.

And yet they did historically. Funny that.

Macedonian kings were not 'elected' - they were acclaimed in the fashion of tribal chieftains, which, in a not too distant sense, they were. This didn't mean that the throne was legitimately open to all who wanted it, though. To be able to carry it off, you still needed to have royal connections. Succession was very flexible, but not that flexible.
 
Last edited:
Here is another scenario to ponder... Alexander was 33 when he died, and 16 when he assumed his first military command. Let's presume that around the age of 16, he is married off to an appropriately Greek/Macedonian woman, and she gives birth to a son within a year of that. Moreover, let's presume that said woman dies in childbirth, or perhaps he abandonds and/or divorces her at some point. Either way, the point is that now, Alexander has an heir aged roughly 16 or so (which at the time would have been considered adult enough to lead - Alexander himself inherited at only slightly older age, and already commanded his father's armies at 16). Moreover, let's hope that the butterflies caused by this are minimal, resulting still in the same outcome of Alexander's conquests, and same life span for Alexander (might be stretching plausibility here a bit, as such a POD is almost certainly going to change the court dynamics around Alex, and therefore the butterflies down the line might be large indeed).

The end result is, when Alexander dies at 33, he has a legitimate, adult (or near-adult) son by a Greek mother, who can immediately inherit. What happens next?
 
While the macedonian throne was elective, they always elected the guy who would have gotten it through primogeniture anyway.
 
Here is another scenario to ponder... Alexander was 33 when he died, and 16 when he assumed his first military command. Let's presume that around the age of 16, he is married off to an appropriately Greek/Macedonian woman, and she gives birth to a son within a year of that. Moreover, let's presume that said woman dies in childbirth, or perhaps he abandonds and/or divorces her at some point. Either way, the point is that now, Alexander has an heir aged roughly 16 or so (which at the time would have been considered adult enough to lead - Alexander himself inherited at only slightly older age, and already commanded his father's armies at 16). Moreover, let's hope that the butterflies caused by this are minimal, resulting still in the same outcome of Alexander's conquests, and same life span for Alexander (might be stretching plausibility here a bit, as such a POD is almost certainly going to change the court dynamics around Alex, and therefore the butterflies down the line might be large indeed).

The end result is, when Alexander dies at 33, he has a legitimate, adult (or near-adult) son by a Greek mother, who can immediately inherit. What happens next?

Thats an interesting one actually Midgard
 
Here is another scenario to ponder... Alexander was 33 when he died, and 16 when he assumed his first military command. Let's presume that around the age of 16, he is married off to an appropriately Greek/Macedonian woman, and she gives birth to a son within a year of that. Moreover, let's presume that said woman dies in childbirth, or perhaps he abandonds and/or divorces her at some point. Either way, the point is that now, Alexander has an heir aged roughly 16 or so (which at the time would have been considered adult enough to lead - Alexander himself inherited at only slightly older age, and already commanded his father's armies at 16). Moreover, let's hope that the butterflies caused by this are minimal, resulting still in the same outcome of Alexander's conquests, and same life span for Alexander (might be stretching plausibility here a bit, as such a POD is almost certainly going to change the court dynamics around Alex, and therefore the butterflies down the line might be large indeed).

The end result is, when Alexander dies at 33, he has a legitimate, adult (or near-adult) son by a Greek mother, who can immediately inherit. What happens next?
Wouldn't it be unusual for a Greek man to marry that young? He's still an ephebos, and a young one at that- after all, at the time men married women much younger than them.
 
Wouldn't it be unusual for a Greek man to marry that young? He's still an ephebos, and a young one at that- after all, at the time men married women much younger than them.

That's a good point. Even if he did marry that young, his wife likely wouldn't be of consummating or childbearing age.
 
That's a good point. Even if he did marry that young, his wife likely wouldn't be of consummating or childbearing age.

That's a valid point that it was probably very unlikely, but not impossible. Perhaps the politics at Philip's court may play out slightly differently, thus producing the marriage alliance through Alex's early marriage. Or maybe a smaller Greek polis could be brought into the fray through such an alliance. The point is not necessarily just how such a marriage would take place - one can create several different scenarios that, while perhaps not entirely realistic most of the time, could have worked in unique circumstances. The point is more so to give Alexander a teenage son by the time of his death, recognized by all as Alexander's son and heir, and old enough to be at least in theory allowed command of the army (again, with Alexander himself setting precedent).

Even then, there is yet another possibility. While an illegitimate son may have a harder time assuming succession, there is absolutely nothing that would stop a teenage Alex from fathering a son during that time without a marriage and all that would normally procur - as long as the mother is Greek, Macedonian, or reasonably close to that, this son might be considered quasi-legitimate in a way. Considering the Greek mythology, often birth parentage was used as a substitute for "legitimacy" - how many Greek heroes were born as a result of one-night liaisons, if you think of it? Now, in order for this to make an impact on this TL, let's say that somewhere down the line, Alexander recognizes this son as "his", making it official. Not sure if he would make this son his successor, as I would presume that should his OTL marriages still take place, sons born from those marriages would technically have a superior claim to the throne.

Of course, since the entire idea is to give Alexander a "heir and a spare", or, failing that, just a heir old enough to actually rule in his own stead, we may even completely butterfly Alex's latter marriages and those sons - or perhaps they end up producing daughters, or no children at all. Now, when Alexander dies in Babylon, aged 33, all of a sudden he has a 15-17 year old son who he has previously publicly recognized as his own, and who he has treated as his successor and heir. Presuming he formally acknowledges this son (think Theseus or similar as a role model for the situation - someone of Alexander's power and charisma should have been able to pull that one off, especially with precedent rooted in traditional Greek mythistory), and presuming that he helped to "break in" this son into the military and the government command structures, he could have had a successor ready to take over right away, and perhaps even commanding the loyalty of the generals.

Now, the loyalty of the generals is almost certainly going to be very fickle. Because of this, barring any extraordinary charisma, military ability, or the like, Alexander Jr. is probably going to be able to hold on to some part of his father's empire, but probably not the entire thing. That is, providing the generals do not conspire against him... he might end up possibly allying with one of the Diadochi, with Alex Jr. providing the overall legitimacy, and the general in question providing the army and the expertise, but it is anyone's guess how long such an alliance would last.

Finally, much depends on the character of this son. If he is basically a younger version of his father, he might be able to hold much of the realm together, even if it will take long struggles. Along the way, he will need quite a bit of luck to avoid the inevitable intrigue, and the number of potential claimants desiring his position.

A less able man would be used as a "front" until such a point that his use is no longer convenient to the "powers behind the throne", most likely Macedonian military aristocracy. In this scenario, Alex Jr. is as good as dead, or is completely a non-entity, and down the line, partition of Alexander's empire will not be terribly different from OTL.
 
While the macedonian throne was elective, they always elected the guy who would have gotten it through primogeniture anyway.

Not necessarily. The interesting (if not unique) thing about Macedonian succession is that while the throne pretty much always passed to someone with a reasonable (if tenuous) claim on the throne, the person who wound up as king always seemed to be the most powerful noble relative of the King. Funny how that happens.:rolleyes:;):cool:

Example: Philip II was the third son of King Amyntas III of Macedon. Amyntas died in 369 BCE. His first heir Was Alexander II. However, he was assasinated on the orders of Ptolemy of Aloros, his brother in law, in 368. Ptolemy became regent for the second son, Perdiccas III, who then overthrows him. Perdiccas died in a military expedition, and Philip became regent for his infant nephew, Armysas IV. Philip deposed said nephew, and became Phillip II of Macedon. So, while theoretically the succession was primogeniture (and admitidly this isn't the best example because the succession technically followed the rules), we see a series of members of the royal family and hangers on (Ptolemy, for instance) betray and murder each other to sieze power.
 
Not necessarily. The interesting (if not unique) thing about Macedonian succession is that while the throne pretty much always passed to someone with a reasonable (if tenuous) claim on the throne, the person who wound up as king always seemed to be the most powerful noble relative of the King. Funny how that happens.:rolleyes:;):cool:

Example: Philip II was the third son of King Amyntas III of Macedon. Amyntas died in 369 BCE. His first heir Was Alexander II. However, he was assasinated on the orders of Ptolemy of Aloros, his brother in law, in 368. Ptolemy became regent for the second son, Perdiccas III, who then overthrows him. Perdiccas died in a military expedition, and Philip became regent for his infant nephew, Armysas IV. Philip deposed said nephew, and became Phillip II of Macedon. So, while theoretically the succession was primogeniture (and admitidly this isn't the best example because the succession technically followed the rules), we see a series of members of the royal family and hangers on (Ptolemy, for instance) betray and murder each other to sieze power.
Technically, they would have still betrayed and murdered each other in a full primogeniture system too:rolleyes:.
 
Technically, they would have still betrayed and murdered each other in a full primogeniture system too:rolleyes:.

Amazing how that works.;)

Unforunatly, that sort of thing didn't always happen in as neat and orderly a fashion. Archelaus I, for instance, took power by murdering his uncle, cousin, and legitimate half-brother. He was eventually killed by his page, Craterus, who ruled for four days before being deposed by Archelaus' son, Orestes. Orestes ruled with his guardian, Aeropus II. Orestes was replaced with his brother Archelaus, and Aeropus by his son Pausanias. After that, there are a series of short-lived rulers who happen to be sons or brothers of the kings, and I get confused by it all.
 
Top