WI: Alexander Dies Without Any Heirs

A question that's been on my mind recently. What if, when Alexander dies in Babylon in 323 BCE, he has no family heirs? Let's assume neither Roxane nor Statiera become pregnant, and that shortly before his return to Babylon, Arrhidaeus also somehow dies on the way back to Babylon of illness.

Now the interesting thing that arises here is the only technically living male family member of Alexander's is Heracles, the reputedly illegitimate child of Alexander's from Barsine, daughter of the Satrap Artabazus of Phyrgia. Now OTL, the only person to voice their support of Heracles to be Alexander's successor was Nearchus. I'm interested in what the implications of all this would be-how would Alexander's generals handle this. Despite the controversy surrounding Heracles' parentage, would he be held up as the heir to Alexander and a regent(s) placed over him? I could see this being ripe for many of them later using the questions over his parentage to their own gain, so they might support it just judging by his weak and tenuous claim that can be exploited later.

Alternatively, could Perdiccas make a bid for the purple himself? He does have Alexander's signet ring, although I think he recognized he likely did not have the support to actually pull that off, and I somehow doubt the other generals would have let him become king without opposition.

So how exactly does the Babylon conference play out?
 
Considering the OTL fate of Alexander's empire even with a legitimate heir, I think the empire would break up all the same. Although a quick wiki suggests that Heracles might not even be real or a son of Alexander, which if true everything can pretty much go to hell alot quicker.
 
What if Alexander married and fathered a son earlier. Lets call him Kataskepsis- what if he fathered him early enough that the boy was sixteen at this point? Might a portion of the empire fight under his banner. I could imagine him the Emperor of Macedonia and Anatolia. I doubt he would be able to hold onto much outside that area.
 
Well the king of Macedon was traditionally proclaimed by acclamation, or in other words the army has the right to select the next king so thats the first thing that needs to be taken into account. This includes the common rank and file soldiers as well as the generals (and in fact the riot at babylon was originally caused by Perridcas neglecting their sacred rights) so its not just something that can be decided in a backroom. The elective monarchy system was tempered by the extremely strong loyalty the Macedonian army had to their kings and the royal family (especially Philip, even more so than Alexander), so its usually supposed to work out pretty well. But on the other hand its complicated by the fact everyone is in Babylon and now no member of the royal family is present there to actually influence the vote of the army. So... riot.

Alexander's entire family is either widowed or unmarried, which doesn't give any options for successors there. It does allow any would be diadochi to make a claim by marrying one of his sisters but... The army is still rioting at Babylon and a decision needs to be made immediately.

Alexander had nephews technically, but they would have been from Epirus rather than Macedon (and most importantly not physically at Babylon). Considering that the Macedonian army was still incredibly nationalistic about Macedon Pride, this would probably be enough to disqualify them from the succession.

So in otherwords, it's a complete mess.

Of the Generals Perdiccas is the highest ranking, and also has the signet ring. In actually his claim is probably better than Heracles, because no one really believes Nearchus. He was forced to (temporarily) give up the signet ring when the army rioted though, and then they tried to kill him. If he dared to claim the throne, the civil war in the capital would have been unavoidable (it was barely stopped in OTL).

Among the other generals Ptolemy was the most popular officer's in Alexander's army, while Craterus was considered to be the most trustworthy and most capable. Craterus was absent from Babylon however and Ptolemy either lacked the ambition (or rather was smart enough to realize that anyone who gets close to the throne was going to be killed horribly). I think however that Ptolemy may have been Heracles uncle by marriage through some sort of extended relation (Nearchus married Barsine's daughter, while Ptolemy married Barsine's sister I think?). OTL even that wasn't enough to get him to support Heracles though. But again he probably realized that nobody took Heracles seriously except for Nearchus' blatant power claim.

If Heracles is going to be chosen as a compromise candidate they would have to convince not only the other generals but also the phalanx. The diadochi period would still happen pretty much as historically. It might accelerate the powerplays going on a bit. Some changes in the Macedon War as Alexander IV and Phillip III would not be on either side. Though the war was less about either of the two kings and more just a dispute between Cassander and Polyperchon that spiraled out of hand (and then got not only both kings but pretty much all of the remaining Argead royal family killed).
Considering the OTL fate of Alexander's empire even with a legitimate heir, I think the empire would break up all the same. Although a quick wiki suggests that Heracles might not even be real or a son of Alexander, which if true everything can pretty much go to hell alot quicker.
There's also the theory about Ptolemy being Alexander's half-brother, which similarly probably wouldn't carry much weight.
 
Last edited:

Dirk

Banned
Perdikkas was actually a distant cousin of the Argead line. In addition to being so high ranking and in possession of the signet ring, he was a moderate supportive of both inclusion of Persians and their customs into the army and court, and special privileges for full blooded Macedonians, and I have little doubt that he would be acclaimed Basileus.
 
The problem is the other generals are not inclined to let perdiccas just claim the throne. And perdiccas knows this. There's going to be some sort of mutiny in the capital, and I think just by the nature of nobody wanting anyone else to seize power for themselves, Heracles might be chosen as a temporary compromise candidate just to defuse the situation. I doubt it even lasts as long as the OTL compromise did however, as I can't see them an felting Heracles for any longer than it takes them to get to their satrapies and figure out who's on who's side.

The person to watch out for is craterus I think. Being immensely popular with the infantry, he might have an even better hand to play this time around since he can easily reject Heracles' claim to the throne and then all bets are off- Antipater might follow him with that and then it's just a matter of the opportunists siding with either the old guard craterus and Antipater or rallying behind Heracles (for their own gain of course not for any real belief thT Heracles should rightfully be king)
 
Well, the Argeads were very popular with the army. If Heracles is the only male Argead left, I can't see army abandoning his claim. And if Heracles is indeed succesfully rejected, what would the opposing generals propose? One of them marry Cleopatra to produce an Argead king? That would immediatly turn everyone against whoever married Cleopatra. If Heracles is rejected, the only ones remaining Argeads are the female ones. And whoever marries them, gains great power as well as kingship over the Argead empire, but also the hostility of all of the generals in this case. It would be a shitstorm, even worse than IOTL, without a solution I can think of.
 
Let's assume that Heracles is proclaimed as King. Presumably the army, unlike OTL, would accept this since there is no other male alternative this time around (unless of course one of the generals is both opportunistic and charismatic enough to convince them otherwise, which I doubt).

This begs the question: what then? I imagine something resembling the original proposal for the OTL regency before the mutiny would be agreed upon: Perdiccas, Leonnatus, Craterus, and Antipater being the board of 4 to act as regents. As was agreed then, Craterus and Antipater would hold their command i Europe and Leonnatus and Perdiccas in Asia. Craterus would be granted the status of the king's representative allowing him to draw from the royal treasuries, in an attempt to placate him.

Now the million dollar question is, does Craterus temporarily accept this? OTL he at least had a little more reason to fall in line initially, given Arrhidaeus and Alexander III were made joint kings and they had a clear and strong claim. Here though, it's more of a tossup-he has 10,000 hardened veterans and can easily storm into Babylon and can legitimately claim Heracles is not only not full blooded Makedonian but might not even be the son of Alexander at all. If he does attempt to strike the first blow, they'd be hard pressed to stop him from taking Babylon.
 
Considering how Alexander had sex with anything that moved, as far as I can tell, I could easily see the Diadochoi each proposing a lad as heir. Not, you understand, that any of those boys would actually have been Alexander's, but that their mothers had been in the same city once....
 
Considering how Alexander had sex with anything that moved, as far as I can tell, I could easily see the Diadochoi each proposing a lad as heir. Not, you understand, that any of those boys would actually have been Alexander's, but that their mothers had been in the same city once....

I don't see why. After the diadochoi started fighting, Alexander III and Phillip III were just hindrances on their ability to declare themselves kings in their own right.
 
The person to watch out for is craterus I think. Being immensely popular with the infantry, he might have an even better hand to play this time around since he can easily reject Heracles' claim to the throne and then all bets are off- Antipater might follow him with that and then it's just a matter of the opportunists siding with either the old guard craterus and Antipater or rallying behind Heracles (for their own gain of course not for any real belief thT Heracles should rightfully be king)
If Craterus wants the assistance of Antipater he would need to bail the latter out of the Lamian War. For the same reason Antipater isn't able to assist Craterus in any usurpation scheme because he's too busy fighting the Greeks. Not to mention the regent of Macedon is busy feuding with the female members of the royal family. Any alliance between Antipater and Craterus would be sabotaged by the royal family (mostly Olympias) doing anything they can to ruin Antipater. Even if it means offering a royal marriage and the throne to every general around except Antipater. There's also Cynane and Eurydice as the other faction of the royal family opposed to Olympias (but still not a fan of Antipater). Though would Cynane still try to marry Eurydice to Heracles when he is so laughably a fake? Possibly, unless there's a better option.

However Craterus never seemed historically to have any ambitions for greater power. Though admittedly he did die rather early in the war, there's no evidence that he was egotistic enough or had any interest in usurping the throne. During the Lamian War and after he seemed to accepted being Antipater's subordinate without any complaints.

Of more immediate concern I say would be Leonnatus the bodyguard, the favored of Olympias. He was betrothed to Cleopatra and went to Greece to fight the Lamian War, both of which were probably in expectation of greater ambitions (either usurping the regency of Macedon from Antipater, or the royal throne itself). Though he died almost instantly after making that public, which would seemed to start a trend of anyone who even got vaguely close to the throne.

Which of course should be reiterated, any attempt to actually try to claim Alexander's throne will end badly either through bad luck, or from all the other diadochi ganging up on the latest threat. Thats not gonna change with Heracles around.
 
If Craterus wants the assistance of Antipater he would need to bail the latter out of the Lamian War. For the same reason Antipater isn't able to assist Craterus in any usurpation scheme because he's too busy fighting the Greeks. Not to mention the regent of Macedon is busy feuding with the female members of the royal family. Any alliance between Antipater and Craterus would be sabotaged by the royal family (mostly Olympias) doing anything they can to ruin Antipater. Even if it means offering a royal marriage and the throne to every general around except Antipater. There's also Cynane and Eurydice as the other faction of the royal family opposed to Olympias (but still not a fan of Antipater). Though would Cynane still try to marry Eurydice to Heracles when he is so laughably a fake? Possibly, unless there's a better option.

However Craterus never seemed historically to have any ambitions for greater power. Though admittedly he did die rather early in the war, there's no evidence that he was egotistic enough or had any interest in usurping the throne. During the Lamian War and after he seemed to accepted being Antipater's subordinate without any complaints.
This is true. I can still see some alliance here between Antipater and Craterus despite what Olympias might do to split them. Though now this brings another interesting scenario to the equation: What does Antigonus do? If Leonnatus isn't available in Hellespontine Phrygia (see below), perhaps Cleopatra offers her hand in marriage to Antigonus? I'm not sure he'd accept though-alternatively, she could still offer Leonnatus her hand in marriage if he still ends up going west (see below).
Of more immediate concern I say would be Leonnatus the bodyguard, the favored of Olympias. He was betrothed to Cleopatra and went to Greece to fight the Lamian War, both of which were probably in expectation of greater ambitions (either usurping the regency of Macedon from Antipater, or the royal throne itself). Though he died almost instantly after making that public, which would seemed to start a trend of anyone who even got vaguely close to the throne.

Which of course should be reiterated, any attempt to actually try to claim Alexander's throne will end badly either through bad luck, or from all the other diadochi ganging up on the latest threat. Thats not gonna change with Heracles around.
Well here, Leonnatus may remain one of the "Board of 4" initially appointed as regents before the mutiny in Babylon OTL. It will be interesting to see how he would act in that situation-I can see at least initially some understanding between him and Perdiccas against any western coalition that's likely to pop up in the aftermath of the Lamian War like OTL. That would have some interesting consequences-rather than putting his trust in Eumenes to lead the fight in Anatolia, who at this time is relatively untested, Perdiccas might go to Egypt while Leonnatus leads the resistance in Asia Minor and maybe then he plays the opportunist.
 
This is true. I can still see some alliance here between Antipater and Craterus despite what Olympias might do to split them. Though now this brings another interesting scenario to the equation: What does Antigonus do? If Leonnatus isn't available in Hellespontine Phrygia (see below), perhaps Cleopatra offers her hand in marriage to Antigonus? I'm not sure he'd accept though-alternatively, she could still offer Leonnatus her hand in marriage if he still ends up going west (see below).

Well here, Leonnatus may remain one of the "Board of 4" initially appointed as regents before the mutiny in Babylon OTL. It will be interesting to see how he would act in that situation-I can see at least initially some understanding between him and Perdiccas against any western coalition that's likely to pop up in the aftermath of the Lamian War like OTL. That would have some interesting consequences-rather than putting his trust in Eumenes to lead the fight in Anatolia, who at this time is relatively untested, Perdiccas might go to Egypt while Leonnatus leads the resistance in Asia Minor and maybe then he plays the opportunist
A large part of Antigonus' rise to prominence was his alliance with Antipater and Craterus against Perdiccas. Before that Antigonus (and Demitrius most notably) was notably not part of Alexander's army for the decade in Persia. Instead he had been assigned to remain in Asia Minor to secure the supply lines while everyone else went east. Which made the success of the Antigonids all the more remarkable as they lacked the years of military experience Alexander's inner circle had gained while campaigning the last ten years in India.

Though even with Demitrius as a military genius they technically did lose every time they fought an actual diadochi (namely Ptolemy Soter or Seleucus, and also Lysimachus), so the lack of experience did hurt their cause to some degree.

But after the conference of Babylon, Antigonus was still commanding his satrapy and had been ordered by Perdiccas to help Eumenes conquer Cappadocia (which he refused). He doesn't really have a lot of troops or political clout until after his defection (though he does command three satrapys so he does have that going for him), and is well along in years so his marriage value isn't as great as it could be. And his defection may be avoided to some degree if Perdiccas remains in Babylon instead of going to Asia Minor. Perdiccas went north to help Eumenes conquer Cappadocia, and also after Eumenes reported back to Babylon about Leonnatus' activities in Greece. And then Perdiccas conquering Cappadocia put Antigonus under the threat of censure for refusing to help Eumenes (Perdiccas at this point had achieved a reputation as a tyrant due to ordering the Cappadocian's be crucified and that the leaders of the riot at Babylon be crushed by an elephant. Not to mention having Cyanae killed in broad daylight in front of the army and courting Cleopatra in an attempt to usurp the throne.). Antigonus is less likely to defect to Antipater if its butterflied by Perdiccas (and Leonnatus) not leaving Babylon.

On the other hand, the old wolf wouldn't be getting any younger and he's already been left behind once while the upstarts went east, so Antigonus would likely still be eying the instability of the diadochi period to win glory and make a name for his family.
 
Considering how Alexander had sex with anything that moved, as far as I can tell

Where did you get this impression? A lot of the legends surrounding Alexander note his chastity - for instance, there's a famous episode where Philip and Olympias are worried during Alex's later teen years that he was so sexually introverted that they hired a prostitute from Athens to try and "make him a man". That he didn't marry before going to Persia can be interpreted as falling in line with this, although there were real political reasons for not marrying immediately as well. He may have had three wives, and possibly sired a bastard, but the wives were each very political (and falling in line with the tradition of Argead kings being polygamous), and Herakles' parentage is quite questionable. Of course, that said, the perception that he was a sexual recluse could just be a misunderstanding of him not being interested in women - "the only thing that conquered Alexander was Hephaestion's thighs". And Bagoas' lips too. :p

Anyways, the point of the above is that Alexander's historical reputation doesn't really fit with your statement (at least from what I've read), and though he certainly wasn't asexual, he was also far less... prolific a conqueror than say Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar (two men who, admittedly, would be tough for anyone to beat :p;)).

Anyways, back on topic. Personally, I've never really believed that Herakles was a bastard of Alexander's. There's never been much evidence other than Nearchus saying he was, and it was obviously in his interest to claim that he was. And Ptolemy was almost certainly not a bastard of Philip's - that story screams Ptolemaic propaganda. If we go forward with these assumption,s than I think Dirk is right - Perdiccas is probably the closest to the Argead line, and is probably agreed upon to be the heir. That said, Herakles would be more convenient - from most of the bodyguards' perspectives, it would be better to rule through a child than cede control to a rival.
 
A large part of Antigonus' rise to prominence was his alliance with Antipater and Craterus against Perdiccas. Before that Antigonus (and Demitrius most notably) was notably not part of Alexander's army for the decade in Persia. Instead he had been assigned to remain in Asia Minor to secure the supply lines while everyone else went east. Which made the success of the Antigonids all the more remarkable as they lacked the years of military experience Alexander's inner circle had gained while campaigning the last ten years in India.

Though even with Demitrius as a military genius they technically did lose every time they fought an actual diadochi (namely Ptolemy Soter or Seleucus, and also Lysimachus), so the lack of experience did hurt their cause to some degree.

But after the conference of Babylon, Antigonus was still commanding his satrapy and had been ordered by Perdiccas to help Eumenes conquer Cappadocia (which he refused). He doesn't really have a lot of troops or political clout until after his defection (though he does command three satrapys so he does have that going for him), and is well along in years so his marriage value isn't as great as it could be. And his defection may be avoided to some degree if Perdiccas remains in Babylon instead of going to Asia Minor. Perdiccas went north to help Eumenes conquer Cappadocia, and also after Eumenes reported back to Babylon about Leonnatus' activities in Greece. And then Perdiccas conquering Cappadocia put Antigonus under the threat of censure for refusing to help Eumenes (Perdiccas at this point had achieved a reputation as a tyrant due to ordering the Cappadocian's be crucified and that the leaders of the riot at Babylon be crushed by an elephant. Not to mention having Cyanae killed in broad daylight in front of the army and courting Cleopatra in an attempt to usurp the throne.). Antigonus is less likely to defect to Antipater if its butterflied by Perdiccas (and Leonnatus) not leaving Babylon.

On the other hand, the old wolf wouldn't be getting any younger and he's already been left behind once while the upstarts went east, so Antigonus would likely still be eying the instability of the diadochi period to win glory and make a name for his family.
All true. Though as you said, Antigonus isn't getting any younger. I think his decision was as much opportunism as it was Perdiccas pushing his luck. He may still think his best chance for getting somewhere lies with joining Antipater.
Anyways, back on topic. Personally, I've never really believed that Herakles was a bastard of Alexander's. There's never been much evidence other than Nearchus saying he was, and it was obviously in his interest to claim that he was. And Ptolemy was almost certainly not a bastard of Philip's - that story screams Ptolemaic propaganda. If we go forward with these assumption,s than I think Dirk is right - Perdiccas is probably the closest to the Argead line, and is probably agreed upon to be the heir. That said, Herakles would be more convenient - from most of the bodyguards' perspectives, it would be better to rule through a child than cede control to a rival.

This is why I think it would be Herakles that would be the compromise candidate. It's far easier for them to pursue their own independent goals if the king is a child, much less so when the king is one of the powerful generals.
 
Anyways, back on topic. Personally, I've never really believed that Herakles was a bastard of Alexander's. There's never been much evidence other than Nearchus saying he was, and it was obviously in his interest to claim that he was. And Ptolemy was almost certainly not a bastard of Philip's - that story screams Ptolemaic propaganda. If we go forward with these assumption,s than I think Dirk is right - Perdiccas is probably the closest to the Argead line, and is probably agreed upon to be the heir. That said, Herakles would be more convenient - from most of the bodyguards' perspectives, it would be better to rule through a child than cede control to a rival.
Perdiccas was from the house of Orestis, which was a high ranking princely line, but thats not the royal line of the Argeads. Leonnatus the bodyguard actually had the closest blood relation, through Alexander's grandmother, while Antipater was a much more distant relative (to a similar degree of Perdiccas likely) and Neoptolemus (Alexander's armor bearer, mostly famous for his rivalry with Eumenes) was related to Alexander's mother (possibly her nephew). And Alexander had nephews in Epirus through the line of Cleopatra and his uncle (also named Alexander). This doesnt help any of them though, since a distant relationship isn't enough to actually claim membership the to Argead line.

The bigger problem is that despite his rank, Perdiccas was unpopular and unliked. As the declared regent the mutiny targeted him as the 'face' of their grievances to the point where the order for his execution was issued during the riot.

The infantry wouldn't crown him at Babylon because they saw him as an usurper, while the generals and cavalry wouldn't crown him because he's in not that great a boss to work for (he quickly became a tyrant after Alexander's death after all) and they don't want to give him more power than he already has. They would fight alongside him, once the infantry and the cavalry line up to do battle outside of Babylon (the riot got really out of hand), since its their only hope for survival, but they wouldn't fight for him. IF he tried to press for kingship however, the riot would probably be a lot worse until he backed down.

I think Perdiccas' popularity (and his blood relation) is being overestimated while underestimating how disastrous the situation at Babylon had become after Alexander's death. Civil war was barely avoided due to Eumenes' last minute negotiations, and Perdiccas attempting to crown himself is probably going to add a lot more fuel to the flames. The negotiations at Babylon weren't a civil negotiation conducted only among the officers, but was held in front of a royal army (which traditionally had the right to choose their own kings) that was in the middle of a riot, and then after they stormed the royal tent, was held outside the walls of Babylon with both sides lined up for battle and attempting to intimidate the other into submission. This is not a good time for a power grab.

I don't see any real solution for this, but it really does look like Heracles is the only option that could possibly avoid an (early) bloodbath. Which is odd because literally no one takes Heracles seriously, and probably everyone knows its a lie.

On paper though, even with a battle outside Babylon, Perdiccas does have a lot of military might avaliable to him. Meleager had the majority of the phalanx, but Perdiccas still had the heteroi, and the Silvershields sided with him, and maybe the mercenaries as well. And 200 Indian elephants. More likely though, if Perdiccas continued to claim that he was king in light of the (intense) opposition to him, Seleucus would be eying his sword nervously as the only way to bring peace back to the camp.

Eu tu Seleucus?
 
Last edited:
Perdiccas was from the house of Orestis, which was a high ranking princely line, but thats not the royal line of the Argeads. Leonnatus the bodyguard actually had the closest blood relation, through Alexander's grandmother, while Antipater was a much more distant relative (to a similar degree of Perdiccas likely) and Neoptolemus (Alexander's armor bearer, mostly famous for his rivalry with Eumenes) was related to Alexander's mother (possibly her nephew). And Alexander had nephews in Epirus through the line of Cleopatra and his uncle (also named Alexander). This doesnt help any of them though, since a distant relationship isn't enough to actually claim membership the to Argead line.

I knew Perdiccas was of the leading house of Orestis, and not the Argead line, but I thought I remembered reading that he was distantly related to Alexander. That seems to have been a false memory though, since I checked with a couple of my books today and found nothing. Derp. :eek: Must have been confusing him with Leonnatus; a reminder to check sources before claiming something I'm not certain about.

Now that said, I do still think that Perdiccas being crowned is a legitimate possibility with a complete lack of other legitimate candidates.

I think you are somewhat underestimating Peddiccas' popularity, since although he was opposed by Meleager and the infantry, he also rose higher than any other man in Alexander's army post-Hephaestion, over a number of other very popular, very charismatic personalities. That's not to say he was loved by the infantry (or even the cavalry), he was no Craterus, but he was at least very well respected as a competent officer and someone who could be calm under pressure. Claiming that he was unpopular and unliked at this point seems like hindsight bias - I can't recall anything I've read that suggested that he had this reputation to the army in general before Alexander's death. Of course if you can counter this, please do.

The split between the infantry and cavalry came because the infantry chose Arrhidaeus and the cavalry (in the guise of the bodyguards, all cavalry officers, plus Meleager and Nearchus) chose to see if Roxane would have a boy. Which mostly happened because of racism - Alexander's child with Roxane would be half-Asian; the conservative infantry wanted a full-blooded Macedonian to rule them. Meleager took advantage of this rift to try and challenge Perdiccas, which of course went poorly for him. Meleager tried to execute Perdiccas, not the infantry, and Perdiccas took advantage of the rank and file's loyalty to him and the other chief officers to escape execution. As I understand it, the mutiny against Perdiccas wasn't a rejection of Perdiccas so much as it was a rejection of Alexander's attempt to unify the Macedonian and Persian ruling classes (with the Persians of course as the junior partners).

Now this brings us back to Herakles. Assuming people take him seriously in this timeline as a candidate, Herakles' mother Barsine was half-Greek, half-Persian, meaning Herakles would be a quarter-Persian, and although he does have the advantage of being out of his mother's uterus at Alexander's death, he has a lot of the same disadvantages as Alexander IV had, on top of being illegitimate. I can definitely see the infantry rejecting him even if the little council decides he's the best choice. They would want, if possible, a Macedonian to rule them.

And, in this scenario with the Argead line dying out with Alexander, and if we disqualify Herakles, who else is a better candidate for the throne than Perdiccas? He has the signet ring, he is the highest ranking officer in the army, he's a respected military leader, and he has royal blood - not Argead, but of Orestis. He has the most troops loyal to him out of any of the officers. Curtius claims that IOTL there was a proposal that Perdiccas be made king - which provides some small sort of legitimacy for this idea, even if we don't know whether it actually happened or is simply a Roman fantasy. The officers might decide that crowning him is the best way to maintain stability, and the infantry I think would be more likely to go along with him than with Herakles. This isn't to say that it wouldn't fall apart at some point, because I think it would, but I think Perdiccas being made king is a legitimate possibility, even though he's not distantly related to Alexander as I mistakenly thought.

Now, having thought about it a little more, maybe the most likely possibility is to have Antipater and Craterus rule in Europe and Perdiccas and Leonnatus rule in Asia like the initial theory for the regency went IOTL, except without a king to be ruling in place of - unless they decide they're acting as regents for Alexander's ghost, which is actually not impossible now that it crosses my mind.

Anyways, there are a lot of possibilities, but I think all end in roughly the same result - a bloody, messy civil war, not unlike our timeline. It's really hard to avoid unless you have grown up, legitimate children of Alexander succeeding him. Things will fall apart, whether Perdiccas is king, or there's a regency for Herakles, or the "board of four".
 
I'm on the side of James Romm, that Curtius's saying Perdiccas was offered the crown was "A Roman fantasy, imported into the Macedonian setting". Perdiccas might be able to pull off a power grab with the infantry behind him, but I just don't see the other generals going for it-he could end up putting himself in more or less a similar position as Meleager and it has too much potential to backfire. It seems much more practical from his point of view I think to rule through Herakles-even if that means riding out the storm of the mutiny in the infantry. He'd have essentially as much power as a king, and he might figure that at least in this way, he'd have more allies in the coming civil war-whereas taking the crown might alienate those who would otherwise be inclined to align with him. Perdiccas just strikes me as smart enough to understand the risks and not make the grab, but not smart enough to make a try for it and be able to succeed.

So after an infantry muting failing, I can see the infantry grudgingly accepting Herakles, at least for the time being.
 
Top