WI Alexanders Empire Survives?

Elfwine, I fee like I gotta point something out concerning the succession. Your trying to apply the typical Macedonian succession to an Empire which would be predominantly Persian. Just because nearly every Macedonian succession was met with a mini civil war doesn't mean its the same with Persia.

We're not talking about Persia. That it is predominantly Persian doesn't mean bupkiss unless Alexander fundamentally reshapes his method of so-called administration and incorporates Persians instead of (not even alongside) Macedonians on top.

I'm admit the I don't know much about Persian Achaemenid dynasty but from what I've seen on Wikipedia it was back and forth. Yes there was several instances of members of the Royal House murdering each other for the throne but as side from a civil war at the ascension of Darius the Great there wasn't any other real succession wars. By the time that Alexander dies, lets be conservative and say early to mid 50s, much of the government and army will have shifted from Macedonian control to Persian control. So I'm not seeing how Macedonian succession applies hear.
Is Alexander appointing a Persian chiliarch? Is Alexander replacing Macedonians with Persians (as opposed to the other way around in regards to the rebelling satraps when he got back from India)?

Because the direction it was taking in 323 BC is not towards functionally more Persian, whatever cultural customs strike his fancy.

Oh and about Alexander's administration abilities, I fully admit he was not a gifted admin but he wasn't an idiot. Look as how he divided up power over the administration of new provinces. He divided up control over the civil authority and military authority. It shows that he was at least somewhat aware of potential threats.
Okay, let's pick an example of how that policy worked.

"In Egypt, Kleomenes of Naukrates had used his position* to establish control of the whole government machine, and became extremely rich as well."

* in charge of finances.

Alexander's response? "Alexander, perhaps unable to remove him from a distance and pleased that he was pushing on the construction of Alexandria, may have cooperated by making him the satrap."

Since this comes from the same king who had Parmenion killed because his son was engaged in something that might have been serious, I find it hard to believe that this indicates any genuine concern for how Egypt is governed.

All quotes from John D. Grainger.
 
The latter is a feature of a great many monarchies throughout history, not least Rome. We also need to remember that Alexander had great personal legitimacy so who he names will have more influence than that of his forefathers. How smooth were the successions in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires?

Many monarchies throughout history suffered for it. And Alexander has a huge, freshly conquered, lukewarm in its loyalties empire that is haphazardly administered - and thus desperately in need of someone capable and reasonably popular to take over smoothly, but also because of its riches and size (and thus the easy of building up away from easy reach by someone in one area) vulnerable to pretenders.

This is not going to be especially stable without a lot of work. And if you ask most men whether they care about the wishes of a dead king over promises of gold and power, dead kings tend to be out of luck unless the status of a "legitimate" succession that Macedon most definitely does not have is present.
 
I think a lot of things depend on exactly how long Alexander lives.

Because if he dies in 314 BC instead, any children of his will still be infants and extremely vulnerable. Like OTL they will become pawns in the great game between successors. Now, if enough potent players feel their interests align with one of his children it may be likelier that one will actually end up being King and surviving into adulthood. But the complication is that these are not the only bits and pieces of the Argead dynasty. There is Phillip III and his wife Eurydice (who was herself an Argead), there is Olympias, there is Alexander's sister and his many other half sisters. Anyone that these sisters marry is going to consider themselves party to the equation, and their children will be regarded as Argeads too. Now these things are not insurmountable, but anything that imagines an actual Argead Empire arising out of Alexander dying around this time will need to take account of all of these pieces.

However, at the other end of the scale you can potentially have Alexander living to a reasonably old age. This might not be a likely option, but it is in theory possible. In this particular case, Alexander can do an Augustus and simply outlive both the previous and his own generation. This would leave his Empire in the situation of being unable to remember a time before Alexander; in this case, Macedonian tradition wouldn't exactly be an issue if no-one was alive who remembered or cared about it. That isn't a panacea solution, there would still be problems. Legions of problems. But it leaves a lot of time for problematic characters to be dealt with or to die of natural causes. Because if Alexander instead lived to 60-70 years old, say, then that's probably all of the Diadochii of OTL dead by that point along with Olympias and a number of other important figures. Alexander dying in 286 BC, say, does make a difference to the equation. If the dominant generation is the one that grew up under Alexander instead of beside him, that does alter things significantly; because as it stands, OTL left a number of talented and ambitious individuals being shown what an individual with willpower and military acumen could achieve and also left them in positions of power in an unstable situation.

However, even with an octogenerian Alexander his death would probably still result in a number of problems; even if he became a dedicated administrator he would almost certainly have put in place a number of solutions that caused his successor problems. After all, Phillip II did exactly that to Alexander; he was an extremely intelligent political animal but his polygamy left Alexander with both a bad example and a host of potential dynastic rivals. For example, say Alexander tries to bridge the distance between Macedon and Mesopotamia by appointing someone King of Macedon with the assumption that Alexander outranks him as King of Kings. That might work during Alexander's lifetime. But upon his death, that client king is likely to become extremely ambitious given how distant they are from the political centre of the Empire. And if they're an Argead they have a potential claim to the big-time league as King of Kings. Someone with military talent can march, with Macedonian armies, from Pella to Babylon and take over the Empire; after all, that's exactly what Alexander did to the Persians.

I think the best case scenario without assuming extraordinary luck is this. Alexander lives long enough that one of his sons is able to survive into adulthood at least, and that son is appointed co-regent. Many of the key OTL diadochii figures will likely have already died, or fallen out of favour, by this point. But the Empire is still going to pull at the seams; either satrapies still won't have been properly integrated into the centre, or they will have been partially decentralised and will seize their chance to get out of the arrangement. And if Alexander kept the administration of the Empire roughly the same as the Achaemenid Empire his successor inherits all of the problems that system had; overly powerful satraps, a reliance on military power to guaranteee stability, and having too many potent figures in competition with one another and disagreeing with one another due to power politics. There's also a huge question mark over what would have happened with Chandragupta, who was already born by the time Alexander conquered the Indus region and is thus going to be a thing during Alexander's lifetime; the situation in the Indus is likely to be even less stable than in the Seleucid equivalent, as Seleucus did attempt to shore up the situation there (and was still ultimately unsuccessful). And Greece is still an enormous drain on military manpower for an Empire whose political centre is in Mesopotamia. That might be alleviated by similar settlement policies to the OTL Seleucid ones, but if we take our surviving accounts at our word he preferred to exclusively colonise with Macedonians and natives and fundamentally distrusted Greek troops and Greek colonists so that might be somewhat out of character. Though the thought occurs that a Greek rebellion might be punished with mass resettlement, in the ancient tradition of Near Eastern Empires. That might take much of the sting out of Greece, but would require the situation to deteriorate in Greece in the first place.

In other words, even with a long-lived Alexander I put an enormous question mark over Macedon, Greece and the Indus region at the very least.
 
@Daeres. That was a very good post. I, too, think the Indus region will be impossible to maintain in the Empire. It's too populated and too far away.

Macedon/Greece will almost certainly rebel, but I'm not sure it'll necessary be successful. If Alexander has built a Mediterranean fleet, the Argeads can get a big army and navy there pretty damn quickly from the Levant.
 
As the wars of the diadochi show, putting down such a rebellion is easier said than done. And its not as if the one trying can afford to leave minimal forces behind with such unenthusiastic loyalties.

It is an extremely messy prospect.
 
@Daeres: exactly. Greece, Macedon and Indus lands can be at risk, but the bulk of the Empire (aka the great part of the lands conquistated from Alexander aka the whole Persian Empire) will pass without many trouble to his eldest son from Stateira (or Parysatis, if he and Stateira had not sons).
Alexander never appoint anyone as king of any lands, only satraps (in the persian empire's territories) or regent (in Macedonia) or governor and Arridheus at that time was not yet married with Eurydice then was not yet a problem for Alexander's son. And in any case the majority of the Empire in the succession will follow the Persian costumes who Alexander was very willing to follow at lest in Persia.
The only things who the Macedonian tradition of succession can influence were the government of Macedony and Greece not that of the whole Empire.
 
Slydesertfox: So why didn't he just hire them in the first place instead of letting them go home to the merc markets to be hired by men like Harpalos?

As for Athens: Athens was ordered as much as the others - and refused. ". . . . the city thus was threatened with Antipater's punishment."
On the mercenaries part, many of them went out of his reach. Either way, they are a non factor at worst as long as he is alive, and he will probably make sure he does bring them into his army.

And as for Athens. Athens sent a delegation to meet with Alexander's representative almost immediately after the Exiles Decree was announced. Simply put, a deal was layed out, that was to be brought before Alexander: Athens was to return the gold that Alexander's satrap in Babylon (his name escapes me) that had fled to Athens when Alexander returned from India, and Alexander was to exempt them from the exiles decree. It would be the disappearance of this gold that would lead to Athens exiling Demosthenes.

Anyway, before it reached Alexander to make a decision on it, he was dead. Prior to his death, Antipater made a half hearted effort to enforce it-likely one of the reasons Alexander ordered him to be replaced by Craterus.
 
On the mercenaries part, many of them went out of his reach. Either way, they are a non factor at worst as long as he is alive, and he will probably make sure he does bring them into his army.

Either way, that many armed, trained men are anything but a nonfactor. That's the whole problem.

And as for Athens. Athens sent a delegation to meet with Alexander's representative almost immediately after the Exiles Decree was announced. Simply put, a deal was layed out, that was to be brought before Alexander: Athens was to return the gold that Alexander's satrap in Babylon (his name escapes me) that had fled to Athens when Alexander returned from India, and Alexander was to exempt them from the exiles decree. It would be the disappearance of this gold that would lead to Athens exiling Demosthenes.

Anyway, before it reached Alexander to make a decision on it, he was dead. Prior to his death, Antipater made a half hearted effort to enforce it-likely one of the reasons Alexander ordered him to be replaced by Craterus.
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_alexander?page=8&greekEncoding= This does not suggest Athens caring very much for Macedonian authority - and while Alexander himself might be accepted/feared, it also further illustrates a weakly organized "system".
 
Either way, that many armed, trained men are anything but a nonfactor. That's the whole problem.
Yes, but Athens is not gonna use them to rebel as long as Alexander was alive. They were loosely controlled by the faction that wanted to just suck it up, and even Demosthenes was starting to agree they needed to just suck it up.

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_alexander?page=8&greekEncoding= This does not suggest Athens caring very much for Macedonian authority - and while Alexander himself might be accepted/feared, it also further illustrates a weakly organized "system".
I don't doubt for a second that after Alexander is dead, Athens will lead a Greek rebellion. But as long as he is alive, they are going to hold their breath.
 
Yes, but Athens is not gonna use them to rebel as long as Alexander was alive. They were loosely controlled by the faction that wanted to just suck it up, and even Demosthenes was starting to agree they needed to just suck it up.

I am not sure. IF Alexander's authority seems likely to be able to force them into line, yes. But that if requires Alexander not dropping off the face of the earth with his army..

I don't doubt for a second that after Alexander is dead, Athens will lead a Greek rebellion. But as long as he is alive, they are going to hold their breath.


And why is Athens presented as if no one else hired mercenaries?
 
Top