Alexander's Empire Reunited

I like to roleplay in my campaigns and I'm one of those people who renames and recolours factions. I am quite far into my Baktrian campaign in which I have almost brought an end to the squabbling diadochi and I am wondering how such an empire would be.

So basically I would be interested in some informed speculation on questions such as these:

What would the empire be called? Was there a name that Megas Alexandros used at any point that would be adopted?

Would the empire embody the Hellenic-Persian dream of Alexandros?

I suppose that Baktria was the most Persian out of all the successor states, so would it maybe envision itself as a new Persian empire and revere Cyrus instead of Alexandros? (Probably a stupid question unless the royalty moved to a Persian dynasty.)

Would the empire be progressivist and liberal or totalitarian and elitist?

I may start a mini-AAR once I have reunited Alexander's conquests, so as well as being interesting, this is personal research for that.

Quote:

---

What would the empire be called? Was there a name that Megas Alexandros used at any point that would be adopted?

---

From what I've studied I don't think he personally created a new name for his empire, though he did style himself as the legitimate successor to the Achaemenid Great Kings.

Quote:

---

Would the empire embody the Hellenic-Persian dream of Alexandros?

---

In my opinion, yes and the best faction to represent it would be the Arche Seleukeia. Out of all the Successor kingdoms they were the one who continued the tradition of founding cities with mixed populations the most, along with intermarring with members from the 'lesser successor kingdoms' who had Persian ancestry.

Quote:

---

I suppose that Baktria was the most Persian out of all the successor states, so would it maybe envision itself as a new Persian empire and revere Cyrus instead of Alexandros? (Probably a stupid question unless the royalty moved to a Persian dynasty.)

---

Completely up to you in my opinion. When I play as Seleukeia I always build temples of Seleukos and promote the 'royal state cult'.

Quote:

---

Would the empire be progressivist and liberal or totalitarian and elitist?

---

In my opinion progressivist and liberal as Alexander envisioned an empire where Greeks and Asians were equal, and to him "Every good barbarian is a Greek, and every bad Greek is a barbarian." .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laevex

I suppose that Baktria was the most Persian out of all the successor states,

---

I thought Bactria was more Indo-hellenic.

Pontos/Hayasdan were the more Persian factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

I thought Bactria was more Indo-hellenic.

Pontos/Hayasdan were the more Persian factions.

---

Hayastan is not a diodochi state

Hi there, everyone. Laevex, I honestly think your idea (or dream) of reinstituting Alexander's empire is great. But here comes two questions or two issues. (1) and more importantly, I don't thnk that--historically--anybody else could have done what Alexander did, the reason why he was able to initiate such an empire. If Plutarch was right, Alexander was brave (even reckless--and his soldiers loved it), intelligent (a pupil of Aristotle, no less), visionary, ambitious, etc. I don't think anybody else in history could have all these qualities. But in EB or another strategy game, yes--creating anoather Megas Alexandros is possible. (2) If a new Alexandrian empire is to be established, what core kingdom will it be launched from--even a non-Diodochi state? Seleukia, maybe (I don't think so--they had too many rebellions on their hands, such as the Maccabean Jews for one of the many examples, to properly take off)? Or the Ptolemies? At this time, Makedonia was a mere shadow of its former self, reduced to bullying the Hellenes and a few others; Epirus was exhausted in their wars against the upsurging Latins; etc. But, my friend, in a game such as we have, we are demigods--we can influence what happens in our "world" and change history! If we play it right and have plenty of luck on our side, Alexander's Empire II may even be built starting from a rejuvenated Koinon Hellenon! Hawooh.

If it helps, Justin in his writings refered to the Seleukid realm as Imperium Macedonicum as well as the kings to be Kings of the the Macedonians.

Gentlemen-- I've tried playing EB (it was v1.0) for a few times, and one impression materialized before me: Seleukeia was huge--very huge! So, yes, if I were to choose a starting (or "seed") kingdom for the resurrected 'Imperium Macedonicum, I would take the Seleukids as my candidate. Your rebels can just be quashed handily, Wumpus, if you're ruthless enough. Mrreow.

The differences between the Hellenistic kingdoms came first of all by the native tradtions they adopted in the lands they possed. That made them either Indo-Greeks, Pharaos, Graeco-Persians or "pure Makedonians". So a Baktrian king that would have been able to conquer Western Asia wouldn't have differed much from a Seleukian king that had ruled those lands before. Or a Ptolemaian that had been able to conquer Makedonia would have ruled it as a Makedonian King, not as an Egyptian Pharao.

I think I should clarify that although Seleukia or the Ptolemaoi had the best chances of reuniting the empire, I have almost done it in my Baktria campaign and so I am speculating purely as to what a Baktrian Alexandrian Empire would have been like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

If it helps, Justin in his writings refered to the Seleukid realm as Imperium Macedonicum as well as the kings to be Kings of the the Macedonians.

---

I read an article about this. Isn't that Latin though? What would this be in Greek?

I think this name applies to the Seleukids quite well but, from what I have gathered, the Bactrians were less Macadonian than the Seleukids. I don't really know why I think this but they seem more, well... Bactrian than Macedonian. Feel free to totally disagree.

I can see how the empire may have been fairly accepting of Bactrian rule. After all, what difference does it make to a Syrian whether his king is a Persian, a Macedonian or an Indo-Greek?

I definately feel a mini-AAR coming on, so any constructive debate or information would be very valuable to me. I have lots of questions still.

How would such an empire construct armies? I imagine they would be Phalanx-based as Alexander's were with a large cavalry wing made up of Baktrioi Hippeis and Hallenikoi Kataphractoi as well as the lighter eastern cavalry. I use a lot of Syrian archers too. I even build totally HA armies out of Dahae Riders to police my lands and fight my steppe battles.

How tolerant of non-Hellenes would the Macedonian sovreignty be? Would Indian, Persian and Egyptian nobles be allowed influence in court? Would non-Hellenic subjects be granted full citizenship?

Presumably such a vast nation would be very rich. Would this wealth trickle down to the everyday subject or would it stay with the elite of society?

Sticking to some of the easier questions as I don't have a lot of time, but don't want to leave your post unanswered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laevex

I read an article about this. Isn't that Latin though? What would this be in Greek?

---

Would it matter? The language is so straight forward that it would be nearly impossible to confuse.

Quote:

---

I think this name applies to the Seleukids quite well but, from what I have gathered, the Bactrians were less Macadonian than the Seleukids. I don't really know why I think this but they seem more, well... Bactrian than Macedonian. Feel free to totally disagree.

---

Eh, without much more information it sort of becomes a matter of semantics. The Baktrian kings seem to have had a Greek rather than Makedonian heritage and many of the settlers seemed to be other than Makedonian.

Quote:

---

Presumably such a vast nation would be very rich. Would this wealth trickle down to the everyday subject or would it stay with the elite of society?

---

Well, "trickle down" economics is a funny thing, but the main source of wealth would simply be the fact that trade is easier. When you don't have to cross borders and trade routes run uninterrupted, the flow of goods and monies is much faster and more robust. Also, even though many of the native Syrian farmers who lived outside the Hellenistic cities may have at times resented the new settlers, I think it would be fair to say that they benefited from the increased demand for their goods as cities grew.

Although we don't have concrete numbers, it seems that the Seleukids were rolling in the cold, hard, cash monies. Although it may be anecdotal, reports of satraps living like kings may be completely true as they had access to a fair amount of funds themselves. And if the satraps could live like kings then what would the actual Seleukid kings live like?

As gods, I suppose. That's what they wanted other people to see them as.

So does money make you a god? Is Bill Gates a god? And no, I am not blaspheming, I am talking about gods, not God.

And I'm not actually talking just babling incoherently, please ignore me.

well, if they wanted to...they can.....

last i checked i think certain american nazi cells are worshipping bush for soem reason.....do those count?

OK so if I do start this AAR then do you think the faction name should simply stay Baktria?
It depends on whether the Basileus at the time considers himself a Makedonian or a Baktrian I suppose, because it is either a Makedonian or a Baktrian empire.
Or maybe 'The Reunited Empire' translated into Greek would be plausable, because I am sure the Baktrian king who finishes uniting Alexander's conquests would want to make it clear that he is the undisputed (if not descended) heir of Megas Alexandros. So what would be a good name considering all of this, preferably in Greek?

Also the faction colour. Did Alexander have a particular colour to represent his Empire? Is Baktrian royal blue as good a colour as any?

The military is also a question I am interested in. If we assume the Baktrian royalty have styled themselves as the new heirs to Alexandros, how would their armies look?

And still...
How tolerant of non-Hellenes would the Macedonian sovreignty be? Would Indian, Persian and Egyptian nobles be allowed influence in court? Would non-Hellenic subjects be granted full citizenship?

Edit. nevermind. already said earlier in this thread.