WI Alexander dies before taking the throne

Alot of discussion has involved Alexander dying later then OTL, or at least some time during the Persian war. I don't think i've seen a discussion about him dying before being on the throne. Lets say he dies a few months before Philip does, and Philip is assassinated according to schedule (ignoring the possibility that Alexander was involved in the assassination).

So does Alexanders brother Philip take the throne? Or will his mental infirmities limit his chances like they did in OTL? And what is Macedonias battle hardened and effective army used for?
 
Alexander is an overrated figure. The reasons why he had so much successes was more because the Macedonian army was a force to be reckoned with and the Achaemenids were well on their way to collapse. Philip is too mentally incapable to rule so he'll be nothing more than a puppet figure for whichever general is prominent in the Persian campaign and it's likely the Macedonians won't advance as far.
 
Alexander is an overrated figure. The reasons why he had so much successes was more because the Macedonian army was a force to be reckoned with and the Achaemenids were well on their way to collapse. Philip is too mentally incapable to rule so he'll be nothing more than a puppet figure for whichever general is prominent in the Persian campaign and it's likely the Macedonians won't advance as far.
The Persian campaign is close to being a certianty at this point, right? I know Philip II had planned on a war with the Persians. Is there any chance of a civil war like the one after Alexander died? Or is Macedonia too small for a drawn out war?
 
The Persian campaign is close to being a certianty at this point, right? I know Philip II had planned on a war with the Persians. Is there any chance of a civil war like the one after Alexander died? Or is Macedonia too small for a drawn out war?

Yeah but I don't think Philip planned to conquer the entire Persian Empire. I don't there is much of a chance for a civil war since Alexander is dead. The only person who might make a fuzz is Olympias.
 
Right. Because a monarchy whose ruler is a mentally incompetent young lad is going to be a rock of stability.

Or to put it less sarcastically--yeah, there's a pretty good chance of a civil war, largely of the 'generals jockeying for position' type. And if Ptomley Soter IS in fact Philip's bastard, rest assured that he's going to make a play for the throne.
 
Right. Because a monarchy whose ruler is a mentally incompetent young lad is going to be a rock of stability.

Or to put it less sarcastically--yeah, there's a pretty good chance of a civil war, largely of the 'generals jockeying for position' type. And if Ptomley Soter IS in fact Philip's bastard, rest assured that he's going to make a play for the throne.

Especially given that this is Macedon, and any possible excuse for a civil war will do. The kingdom's history is riddled with such.
 
Right. Because a monarchy whose ruler is a mentally incompetent young lad is going to be a rock of stability.

Or to put it less sarcastically--yeah, there's a pretty good chance of a civil war, largely of the 'generals jockeying for position' type. And if Ptomley Soter IS in fact Philip's bastard, rest assured that he's going to make a play for the throne.
If he was Philip's bastard, would there be any chance of Philip passing over his legitimate son Philip to make Ptomley the heir, or did Macedonian kingship not work like that?

Say if it actually happened, what would happen to the Persian campaign? I think that Ptomely would be able to execute it every bit as well as Alexander did, and if hes lucky, maybe he will be able to avoid Alexander's more crazy actions towards the end of his life. Possible Macedon-wank? (assuming most things go well of course)
 
If he was Philip's bastard, would there be any chance of Philip passing over his legitimate son Philip to make Ptomley the heir, or did Macedonian kingship not work like that?

Say if it actually happened, what would happen to the Persian campaign? I think that Ptomely would be able to execute it every bit as well as Alexander did, and if hes lucky, maybe he will be able to avoid Alexander's more crazy actions towards the end of his life. Possible Macedon-wank? (assuming most things go well of course)

Ptolemy I don't think would want to conquer all of Persia. He would probably settle for a border at the Tigris-Euphrates.
 
Ptolemy I don't think would want to conquer all of Persia. He would probably settle for a border at the Tigris-Euphrates.

You don't draw a border stait down the middle of Mesopotamia. It would be like having a border down the Nile.

Either Syria, Anatolia, Judea and Egypt are the only the conquests, or Mesopotamia is added in its entirety (which should be enough to push the Perisans into a civil war at the very least).
 
You don't draw a border stait down the middle of Mesopotamia. It would be like having a border down the Nile.

Either Syria, Anatolia, Judea and Egypt are the only the conquests, or Mesopotamia is added in its entirety (which should be enough to push the Perisans into a civil war at the very least).

That's actually kind of what I was trying to mean. :p
 
Maybe I'm missing something painfully obvious, but why is this worse than any other river border?

I mean, you might want to take both sides, obviously, but that's different.
 
You don't draw a border stait down the middle of Mesopotamia. It would be like having a border down the Nile.
Actually, if I remember rightly, there were more significant differences between Mesopotamia and Egypt back then even moreso then now. Egypt has always been a desert with a thin but extraordinarily fertile strip along the Nile. But while significant parts of Mesopotamia are now desert, this wasn't the case back in Alexanders time. The Euphrates in Syria now resembles the Nile in Egypt, a river oasis in the desert, but back then, there was alot of fertile land either side of the river, so it makes as much sense as river borders in Europe.
 
You don't draw a border stait down the middle of Mesopotamia. It would be like having a border down the Nile.

Either Syria, Anatolia, Judea and Egypt are the only the conquests, or Mesopotamia is added in its entirety (which should be enough to push the Perisans into a civil war at the very least).

Well Darius actually suggested it in OTL if I'm not mistaken, so I wouldn't count it as impossible.

Civil war might very well be a possibility, which could then lead up to the Macedonians stepping in and either taking over the rest or installing one or more puppets.
 
Well Darius actually suggested it in OTL if I'm not mistaken, so I wouldn't count it as impossible.

Civil war might very well be a possibility, which could then lead up to the Macedonians stepping in and either taking over the rest or installing one or more puppets.

As of Alexander's siege of Tyre: "Diplomatic exchanges accompanied all of this: First an exchange of letters after Issos, then an offer by Dareios to cede part of the empire, possibly from the Euphrates to the Aegean, and the offer of 10,000 talents, ransom for Dareios' family, captured after Issos." - John D. Grainger, Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire.
 
There's the possibility that Darius III would probably be killed if he actually proposes this I imagine, by Bessus or someone else.
 
Top