WI: Alexander the Great Had a different heir

When Alexander the Great died on June 11 323 BC he had 3 wives: Roxana of Bactria, Stateira II, daughter of Darius III of Persia and Parysatis II, daughter of Artaxerxes III of Persia. After his death Roxana, who was around 8 months pregnant had the two Persian wives murdered and gave birth to the child that would be Alexander IV. My question is this: What if one of Alexander's Persian wives was 8 months pregnant instead of Roxana and gave birth to Alexander's heir, lets go ahead and say its a boy. Would having a half Persian half Macedonian King the fall of Alexander's empire? Would Persia and the Asian Provinces and Governors be more likely to me loyal to the heir of Alexander and a member of the Persian Royal family than a child of Alexander and a woman considered by many to be a barbarian ?
 
When Alexander the Great died on June 11 323 BC he had 3 wives: Roxana of Bactria, Stateira II, daughter of Darius III of Persia and Parysatis II, daughter of Artaxerxes III of Persia. After his death Roxana, who was around 8 months pregnant had the two Persian wives murdered and gave birth to the child that would be Alexander IV. My question is this: What if one of Alexander's Persian wives was 8 months pregnant instead of Roxana and gave birth to Alexander's heir, lets go ahead and say its a boy. Would having a half Persian half Macedonian King the fall of Alexander's empire? Would Persia and the Asian Provinces and Governors be more likely to me loyal to the heir of Alexander and a member of the Persian Royal family than a child of Alexander and a woman considered by many to be a barbarian ?

No, it wouldn't change much of anything.
 
Maybe, maybe, maybe if a half-Persian by blood heir of Alexander was a known and accepted adult - but that's a hell of a what if, especially with Alexander's carelessness over both his life and the succession.

Not to mention that I strongly suspect Alexander would see any popularly accepted son of his as a threat in some way or another - less paranoid men have felt so about their heirs.
 
I went into this thread thinking it was going to be about Alexander the Great having a different hair colour....
 
When Alexander the Great died on June 11 323 BC he had 3 wives: Roxana of Bactria, Stateira II, daughter of Darius III of Persia and Parysatis II, daughter of Artaxerxes III of Persia. After his death Roxana, who was around 8 months pregnant had the two Persian wives murdered and gave birth to the child that would be Alexander IV. My question is this: What if one of Alexander's Persian wives was 8 months pregnant instead of Roxana and gave birth to Alexander's heir, lets go ahead and say its a boy. Would having a half Persian half Macedonian King the fall of Alexander's empire? Would Persia and the Asian Provinces and Governors be more likely to me loyal to the heir of Alexander and a member of the Persian Royal family than a child of Alexander and a woman considered by many to be a barbarian ?

Eh... probably not. The failure for a peaceful, stable transition after Alexander has more to do with ambitious Macedonian generals and his failure to leave a clear heir, and less with the heir's mother being Bactrian instead of an Achaemenid. I mean, the Seleucids held Persia for quite a while, and I'm pretty sure that Seleucus didn't have to marry into the Achaemenid family. The heir's mother being Persian wouldn't hurt anything, but I doubt that it would be so much a game-changer that the empire could remain stable - especially if Alexander dies as he did IOTL.
 
Eh... probably not. The failure for a peaceful, stable transition after Alexander has more to do with ambitious Macedonian generals and his failure to leave a clear heir, and less with the heir's mother being Bactrian instead of an Achaemenid. I mean, the Seleucids held Persia for quite a while, and I'm pretty sure that Seleucus didn't have to marry into the Achaemenid family. The heir's mother being Persian wouldn't hurt anything, but I doubt that it would be so much a game-changer that the empire could remain stable - especially if Alexander dies as he did IOTL.

Not when Macedonia's succession has been contested more of the time than not even with adult sons of the previous king - something that would have to be energetically addressed by Alexander to prevent, which is rather unlikely given his OTL attitude towards things that boring.

A half-Persian heir isn't what the empire needs, an heir able to take over the sprawling, over-extended empire is what the empire needs.
 
Not when Macedonia's succession has been contested more of the time than not even with adult sons of the previous king - something that would have to be energetically addressed by Alexander to prevent, which is rather unlikely given his OTL attitude towards things that boring.

A half-Persian heir isn't what the empire needs, an heir able to take over the sprawling, over-extended empire is what the empire needs.

I'm not sure that we disagree here... am I missing something?
 
I'm not sure that we disagree here... am I missing something?

Not at all. I'm just saying that the Macedonia succession being a problem at the best of times makes it, when its in these times (what you posted) completely irrelevant who the mother of the underaged heir is.

Just figured that someone might want to argue that there would be something you could do about the ambitious generals and so on, so I wanted to add to what you said. It is too easy to underestimate how messed up the situation is, as fans of Alexander's dubious accomplishments tend to.
 
Not at all. I'm just saying that the Macedonia succession being a problem at the best of times makes it, when its in these times (what you posted) completely irrelevant who the mother of the underaged heir is.

Just figured that someone might want to argue that there would be something you could do about the ambitious generals and so on, so I wanted to add to what you said. It is too easy to underestimate how messed up the situation is, as fans of Alexander's dubious accomplishments tend to.

I agree about the ambitious generals being the problems with keeping Alexander's empire together. My point with having a Persian mother rather than a Bactrian was possible support. Roxane was from a remote province, far removed from most of the wars between Alexander's generals. A Persian Queen,lets just say it was Stateira II, on the other-hand, was the de-facto heiress of the Achaemenid Dynasty, still had relatives in powerful positions and could possibly invoke the loyalty of the Persian nobles. Even losing Macedon and Egypt couldn't it be possible for Alexander's heir rule over what would become the Seleucid empire?
 
I agree about the ambitious generals being the problems with keeping Alexander's empire together. My point with having a Persian mother rather than a Bactrian was possible support. Roxane was from a remote province, far removed from most of the wars between Alexander's generals. A Persian Queen,lets just say it was Stateira II, on the other-hand, was the de-facto heiress of the Achaemenid Dynasty, still had relatives in powerful positions and could possibly invoke the loyalty of the Persian nobles. Even losing Macedon and Egypt couldn't it be possible for Alexander's heir rule over what would become the Seleucid empire?

Why in the name of Heaven are the Persian satraps going to prefer the rule of a foreign infant to y'know, independence from the damn Macedonians?

And if Alexandersson can't even keep Macedon despite being the legitimate heir and not subject to vassals who would just as soon not serve him, he's certainly not keeping the East.
 
Why in the name of Heaven are the Persian satraps going to prefer the rule of a foreign infant to y'know, independence from the damn Macedonians?

And if Alexandersson can't even keep Macedon despite being the legitimate heir and not subject to vassals who would just as soon not serve him, he's certainly not keeping the East.

Alexander's son, let's just call him Alexander IV, would only be half foreign and the Persian Satraps essentially accepted the completely foreign Seleucus. Alex IV would be the closest Heir to Darius III, the succession would be odd but not without precedent. Darius I supposedly killed Cyprus the Great's sons (depending on which version is of his succession is true), married his daughter and succeeded to the throne. So Alex IV would be the Achaemenid's legitimate successor. As to losing Macedon, yes it would be a serious blow I'm not saying it wouldn't be. However, It would depend on when he lost Macedon.
 
Alexander's son, let's just call him Alexander IV, would only be half foreign and the Persian Satraps essentially accepted the completely foreign Seleucus. Alex IV would be the closest Heir to Darius III, the succession would be odd but not without precedent. Darius I supposedly killed Cyprus the Great's sons (depending on which version is of his succession is true), married his daughter and succeeded to the throne. So Alex IV would be the Achaemenid's legitimate successor. As to losing Macedon, yes it would be a serious blow I'm not saying it wouldn't be. However, It would depend on when he lost Macedon.

He would be foreign culturally, which matters more than blood here. And the Persian satraps "essentially accepted" the completely foreign Seleucus because he had the force to maintain control, not because they liked Macedonians. Not to mention that Seleucus was an exceptional capable ruler.

And Alexander IV would still be a foreigner, and they'd still prefer independence to accepting his rule. He might have a chance as an adult who had won their support and who had supporters who would back him (not simply use him for carving out their own realm), but not as an infant.

As for losing Macedon and the Darius I comparison: The point is, if he can't even maintain control of Macedon, he's certainly not going to be able to rule the empire. This is like the idea that the House of Lancaster under Henry VI could lose England but keep France.
 
He would be foreign culturally, which matters more than blood here. And the Persian satraps "essentially accepted" the completely foreign Seleucus because he had the force to maintain control, not because they liked Macedonians. Not to mention that Seleucus was an exceptional capable ruler.

And Alexander IV would still be a foreigner, and they'd still prefer independence to accepting his rule. He might have a chance as an adult who had won their support and who had supporters who would back him (not simply use him for carving out their own realm), but not as an infant.

As for losing Macedon and the Darius I comparison: The point is, if he can't even maintain control of Macedon, he's certainly not going to be able to rule the empire. This is like the idea that the House of Lancaster under Henry VI could lose England but keep France.

Who do you imagine would be raising Alex IV ? His father and most of his paternal relatives were dead but his maternal relatives, including a very powerful great grandmother, Sisygambis, are still alive. Most of the generals would be too busy fighting each other than focus on a baby's education, even if it's a baby King. As for independence, I imagine the Persian Satraps were no fools. If they where to revolt it would present a major threat to the squabbling generals. If the generals ignore the revolt it would invite the other native peoples to follow their lead. None of the generals would want to be remembered as the man or men who lost Alexander's empire. As for the Lancastrian reference, look at the Angevin empire and Plantagenet dynasty. The Angevin's were french, spent more time in France than England, and controlled more French land than the French king. Under John of England nearly all the land in France was lost, but John didn't lose the English throne. Sure when he died a french prince had been invited to take the English throne, but after John died leaving an underage son mind you, the nobles supported Henry III (John's son) over a capable adult. So it is possible to lose your homeland and keep your throne.
 
Who do you imagine would be raising Alex IV ? His father and most of his paternal relatives were dead but his maternal relatives, including a very powerful great grandmother, Sisygambis, are still alive. Most of the generals would be too busy fighting each other than focus on a baby's education, even if it's a baby King.

If Alexander IV is to have an chance whatsoever of being Alexander IV - the people who raised the OTL baby.

No one is going to let the heir to the throne of Macedon become a barbarian (by the Hellenocentric definition of the term) if they don't just throw him in a ditch.

You can't have it both ways. Either the generals act like they do OTL, in which case he'll be lucky to see adulthood, or they don't, in which case he'll be very definitely part of the foreign, Greco-Macedonian rulers that the Persians would rather not follow given a choice. Raised by his mother and her family isn't an option and isn't even desired by the Persians.

As for independence, I imagine the Persian Satraps were no fools. If they where to revolt it would present a major threat to the squabbling generals. If the generals ignore the revolt it would invite the other native peoples to follow their lead. None of the generals would want to be remembered as the man or men who lost Alexander's empire.

Didn't stop them from doing what they did OTL. Didn't make the satraps loyal OTL.

Its not even a matter of open revolt. Its a matter of "By the way, while you guys fight, we're ignoring all of you,"

As for the Lancastrian reference, look at the Angevin empire and Plantagenet dynasty. The Angevin's were french, spent more time in France than England, and controlled more French land than the French king. Under John of England nearly all the land in France was lost, but John didn't lose the English throne. Sure when he died a french prince had been invited to take the English throne, but after John died leaving an underage son mind you, the nobles supported Henry III (John's son) over a capable adult. So it is possible to lose your homeland and keep your throne.

Laying aside an argument on how John didn't lose the majority of the French lands because Aquitaine dwarfs the size of the area he lost - this is not similar. This would be as if a foreign conqueror (which John is not - yes, the Angevins are French. So is most of the "English" nobility. Nor is he a conqueror or even son of a conqueror - Henry II was acknowledged heir to the English throne after the usurper Stephen by pens, not swords) lost his homeland and then tried to keep the lands he conquered, which is why I used the Lancastrian idea.
 
Αll depend on when Alexander the Great dies... If he dies as per OTL leaving behind a minor son then the boy is toasted... He will end up a pawn in Generals hands and when he will be of no use he will be disposed...

Now if Alexander dies later and the child is a grown man then he might have a chance of surviving the various plots (assuming his father doesnt kill him in a fit of drunken rage)
 
Αll depend on when Alexander the Great dies... If he dies as per OTL leaving behind a minor son then the boy is toasted... He will end up a pawn in Generals hands and when he will be of no use he will be disposed...

Now if Alexander dies later and the child is a grown man then he might have a chance of surviving the various plots (assuming his father doesnt kill him in a fit of drunken rage)

Or simple paranoid suspicion. Given that Alexander killed loyal generals just for being related to plotters, any son of his who looks capable of winning any support being suspected of being a danger to him (Alexander) dying sounds more likely than not.
 
Or simple paranoid suspicion. Given that Alexander killed loyal generals just for being related to plotters, any son of his who looks capable of winning any support being suspected of being a danger to him (Alexander) dying sounds more likely than not.

Thats true too... Alexander was unstable and in most times he was shooting people first and then asked questions....
 
Top