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?
What effects?
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.
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: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?
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.
yourworstnightmare said:but there is no way they would elect a child.
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.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.
That's a good point. Even if he did marry that young, his wife likely wouldn't be of consummating or childbearing age.
While the macedonian throne was elective, they always elected the guy who would have gotten it through primogeniture anyway.
Technically, they would have still betrayed and murdered each other in a full primogeniture system tooNot 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.
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.