In 326 BC, Alexander the Great, having been forced to turn back by his own soldiers, advanced south through the Indus Valley. Here, one of his enemies were the Malli tribe, and while Alexander was conducting a siege of their capital Multan, he was struck by an arrow that punctured his lung after going straight into the city with only 2 other companions. What if Alexander died at Multan, if the arrow whizzed a little and ended up in his throat, or if he died of his wounds afterward. Who would be proclaimed king? Will they keep up the facade of Arrhidaeus being king? Or will they discard him and choose a real one, since they are in hostile territory? How would the Macedonians deal with the many issues facing the empire? How would the army get out of India? And would the Wars of the Diadochi still happen? Or could they be butterflied away somehow?
WI: Alexander dies at Multan
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
Well, our hero Alex didn’t really have much time to live by this time. In our timeline, after Alexander dies, his generals divide the empire, and they fight for control in the wars of the Diadochi. The Ptolemaic dynasty became powerful in Egypt, while the Sassanids took over Persia and beyond. Greece was a shadow of itself. In this alternate timeline, several things change. First, Alexander’s army would be in the greater India-Bactria region. In our real timeline, it was further west. This would mean that Hellenistic power would be concentrated in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. But, what must be understood, was that Alexander’s dynasty after his father, Phillip, was a one hit wonder. Alex expended massive resources carving out his empire. It was his cultural appropriation that brought it too far. By marrying a relatively foreign woman, Alexander tarnished his dynasty’s legitimacy. Meanwhile, his heir was on the other side of the empire. Alexander IV, as he was known, would at best be the lord of a small Macedonian rump state, robbed of its army, which now was controlled by several generals, located in India and Bactria. The treasury would be weak from Alexander’s campaigns and the empire’s civil war. However, he wouldn’t be treated as a joke by the Diadochi of this alternate timeline. After all, his blood was of Alexander’s, giving him added legitimacy. Some would attempt to gain his favor. Therefore, he would perhaps expand his territory to the Bosphorus, but not much further, and if he did gain additional territory, he would do so by becoming essentially a puppet of the Diadochi. Speaking of the Diadochi, they would form several powerful dynasties in India and Bactria, which would last perhaps until about 50 b.c., if we assume that they would fall at around the same time as they did in our current timeline. Perhaps the modern influences of this would be to slightly Hellenize the Indian and Afghan cultures. Also, some governing structures and succession laws of the West would be brought to India.
I'm sorry but this is a misguided statement based on simply looking at geographical positions. It sees Alexander and his men as simply conquering machines that will conquer in no matter which direction you point them. They weren't automatons, they were real people. They had been fighting 14 long years and missed their homes, desired the titles they were promised. In a distant land that not even the Persians ventured into often, they were out of their depth in a strange land and dwindling in numbers. Battles like the one at Hydaspes and the Siege of Malli left them with few supplies and vassals like Porus and Omphis weren't going to stay loyal to an empire without its legendary emperor, evidenced OTL by their instant declaration of independence after Alexander's death.
This is all ignoring the fact that Alexander hadn't even reached Nanda lands. The Greeks seemed to have been absolutely unsure about their odds facing forces as vast those that Dhana Nanda could array, mutinying at the order to continue.
Toppling the Achaemenid Empire was one thing, the political structures set in place there had been crumbling apart for a long time and Darius was far from in control of his state as rebellions were occurring as Alexander crossed the Hellespont.
Dhana Nanda on the other hand had a strong control of his state and was only overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya after a bitter conflict. Not really a comparable situation and not one the Macedonian army wanted to be in.
Last edited:
Well, here’s the thing. If you look at what actually happened, most Greek soldiers didn’t get home. Not to say that none did. They fought for the Hellenistic dynasties, I believe some were employed as mercenaries. The generals were as generals always are: power-hungry. This is the state of a human leader. Therefore, it is in their nature to take control of the lands surrounding them, as they have been taught to do in their long careers. It’s not like taking a long thousand-mile hike would’ve improved their supply situation. But taking control of some segments of the day’s Bactrian trading routes would have improved it. Yes, many Greeks would defect to the Diadochi close to home, but the generals, who would do what it takes to survive, would subjugate small local regions, forming regional kingdoms. You mentioned their vassals. I totally agree. I’m not saying these Greek kingdoms would be strong enough to influence any semi-decent states in the land. However, in our timeline, the Greeks still formed kingdoms in Bactria. These kingdoms would, of course, mostly dissolve or be subjugated when the Mauryas came along, but because of the larger amount of generals there, and the small but larger fraction of Greeks that would remain there, some Greek customs might be adopted for a while. Some Greek commanders might also turn coat at this time, becoming commanders for the regional Bactrian powers. This is not automaton behavior, but human behavior, because humans will do what it takes to survive, and, as I have demonstrated, that is what this whole timeline is about.
He wouldn't have existed. Even OTL he was a posthumous child, and that was three years later.
Being deep in hostile country, the Macedonians would need a real king, so Arrhideus is out (where was he anyway - with the army or back in Babylon?). It would probably be a choice between Ptolemy, Seleucus or Hephaestion, and the army would have to make its mind up fast.
Biggest change. They probably backtrack the way they came rather than going through the Makran desert, which cuts down on their losses. After that, it depends on how the new King makes out.
Neither Seleukos nor Ptolomeos were big players yet, especially Seleukos, and Hephaestion was rather loathed, the choice would most likely be between Krateros and Perdikkas.
Do we know where they all were? Were all if them on the spot with Alexander?
Perdikkas was, Krateros was leading the veterans back home through another route.
That's just the thing however. You keep mentioning these Diadochi as if they are guaranteed to appear. Following OTL's Indus campaign Alexander managed to make his way back to Babylon and ruled as Sovereign of Asia for 3 years. That's three whole years to cement a legacy. Three years where his Macedonian troops were repatriated and rested. Three years for his officers to begin conspiring against one and other in the shadows of Babylon. Three years after which there was actually a standard of Alexander was set and gave the Diadochi something to war about.
It's a different ballgame to them being an army on the run in a foreign land where their king has been slain due to his own vainglorious nature. I'm not saying that there won't be Greeks who remain in the east, many will become part of the rich mercenary tradition of India at the time and influence the sub-continent culturally. But any hope of political power being gone by them? I don't think so. On Alexander's march back to Suss OTL from the mouth of the Indus he had to put down at least 4 Persian satraps. Without a clear heir ITTL his empire is gonna fall apart as none of the would-be Diadochi have the credentials, legacy of Alexander or will to fight for what is at the moment a state that was being held together by one man's presence.
It's being held together by the Macedonian army - which is still very much there. Indeed, if it has avoided that crazy march across the Makran, it's probably stronger than OTL. It isn't going to just pack up snd go back to Macedon.
I'm not saying it would. I'm saying they're gonna head for Babylon to make sense of everything that's happened and consolidate their positions instead of simply dividing itself neatly under officers going conquering in the east.
Presumably whoever was chosen King in India will want to get back west to establish his authority over the rest of the Empire.
Would the new king necessarily go to Babylon? Alexander did as a jumping off point for his planned invasion of Arabia. Will another King necessarily be doing that? If he gets back east in the Summer months, Ecbatana is a lot healthier. Indeed had Alexander gone there instead of Babylon, both he and Hephaestion might well have died of old age.