Sorry if I misspelled his name but I must know. Was Pyyhrus's claim that he was the true heir of Alexander correct? And if not which faction represented in this game would have been Alexanders true heir?
Printable View
Sorry if I misspelled his name but I must know. Was Pyyhrus's claim that he was the true heir of Alexander correct? And if not which faction represented in this game would have been Alexanders true heir?
I think he appointed an heir, but he didn't last long. I think his name was Perdiccas or something like that....after him though, I'm fairly certain they were all claims. Although Alexander was close with Ptolemy, if I'm not mistaken.
He was related to Alexander through Alexander's mother. Her name was Olympia and was from Epeiros.
As Alexander himself said, "To the strongest." So whoever is the strongest of the Successors, is the 'true heir' of Alexander. Pyrrhos was just about the only blood relative that had a chance. Pyrrhos wanted to be the Alexander of the west, but gave up against Roman resiliance. Antigonos gained the throne of Makedon and set out rebuilding Makedonian power, but he wasn't really a successor. Arche Seleukia and the Ptolemaioi were also out to be the true successor of Alexander, having dynasties that were decended from Alexander's generals. Many people claimed to be the heirs to Alexander's empire.
Personally, I like Makedonia (the Antigonids) when I try to rebuild Alexander's Empire in EB, because they have the Makedonian power and ability to expand eastward.
Yes I like the Macedonians for the same reasons.
Actually I am one of those who believe he meant "Krateros" infantry general, and quite possibly the best of the short circle of Alexandros' friends whose name also happened to mean "the strongest"... or as Alexandros is thought to have said..."ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ". Poor Krateros...:wall: What could a unified empire do with a man like Krateros in its lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
The other Diadochoi, well, they never would accept such a thing, nobody would in their place.
i agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
a plausible theory, yes. What happened to him actually after that... got murdered didnt he. shame.
No, he attacked Sparta but got beaten back, then assaulted Argos, which was defended by Antigonus and his son, whose name I forgot. Phyrus participated in the actual fighing and at one point cornered a young Argive soldier. The soldier's mother (who, like the other women, had taken refuge on the rooftops) saw her son being attacked, grabbed a rooftile, and hurled it at Phyrus. Phyrus was momentarily stunned, allowing the young soldier to finish him of. Phyrus' body was decapitated by a Celtic or Thracian mercenary and brought to Antigonus' son, who brought in in thriump to his father. Antigonus berated his son for this barbarism, but I don't know what he did with the grisly trophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The Stranger meant Krateros, not Pyrrhos, I think.
:oops: ~:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS
He was killed in a battle against a fellow named Eumenes around 320 BCE somewhere in northwest Asia Minor. Reportedly somewhat of a horse riding accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
I see the Seleucids as spiritual heirs to Alexander's empire. Like it says on the faction selection page, "Alexander knew". Babylon was the heart of his new empire, and Seleucia is the greater part of his legacy of conquest.
The EB Macedonians seem more like spiritual successors to Philip, Alexander's father. Their lands and concerns are in the Greek peninsula.
Pyrrhos might be his heir as a general though: he seems the most adventurous and mercurial of the successors, bouncing around from Sicily to Macedonia. He's the one who seems most likely to conquer a great new empire like Alexander, instead of inheriting it.
Alexander had a son - Alexandros IV, he had a regent Filipos Arhidaios, diadochi were only satraps who were supposed to be placeholders before Alexandros II could reach a suitable age for reigning, but Alexandros IV was murdered and Filipos too, so diadochi became kings on their own. And Ptolemaios was called king in Egypt before he officialy became a king.
I believe thet true heirs of Alexander did not exist but first 3 of Ptolemaics and some of Seleucids were great kings who were perhaps good for that title.
EDITED
Actually, Alexander's son was Alexander IV, not II, and I doubt he was murdered by Philip Arrhidaeus. The latter was Alexander's half-brother, but history described him as being feebleminded. Apparently he ruled as a puppet-king, although no-one knows for sure exactly how feebleminded he was.
There was another supposed son, Heracles, who Alexander got from Barsine, the Persian wife of Memnon, one of Darius' Greek commanders. The conception is IIRC supposed to have taken place at Damascus, but to my knowledge we don't hear of the boy until after Alexander died, so I have my doubts about Heracles' parentage. Mind you, I am not up-to-date on Alexander, so I am not sure if what I say is the current view.
Treated the him as a true king and gave him proper funerary rites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Pyrrhos, great general, but far from the brilliant statesman that Alexandros was. Still, by far one of the most intriguing characters of the era.
Megas Alexandros = Alexandros III, so his son was really Alexandros IV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diadoch
Discussing who would be the "rightful" heir of Alexander is rather pointless since Alexander himself wasn't even the "rightful" heir of the Macedonian kingdom. Nor was his father, Philip II of Macedon, if observing the real law of succession that is. Philip II originally came to power as the guardian of what's-his-name, who was a minor. But he was the guy with the big stick and so he sort of slipped into kingship when no one was looking.
Ancient politics is really rather haphazad, half of the time it just seems like bad slapstick.
Oh, and by the way, I'm new to the forums.:beam:
I think i'm authorized to say Welcome to the Forums Axel JD! :beam:
Indeed, welcome and enjoy your stay.:2thumbsup:
Pretty much the main qualification for kingship in any era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Axel JD
Good first post.
Seems like any Greek with an army claimed to be Alexander's heir.
Maybe the last true "heir" of Alexander was Antigonos Monophthalmos who stood for the idea of a unified empire after the death of Perdikkas. With his death in the battle of Ipsos the division of Alexanders kingdom was more or less cemented. Wether Seleukos had the same ambitions is controversial.
There may be some truth in that. Perhaps nobody is born the heir of Alexander, it's a title you earn through deeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinLobster
I was talking about Krateros, :bow: but i see you know that now :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I discovered that I wrote a stupidity as soon as I opened one book this morning. I am sorry, I will edit it. I just did not remembered all facts so I joined Filipos Arhidaios and Perdikas into one person and so on...
Thank you for the warm welcome!
I knew there was a Perdiccas. I thought I was going crazy for a minute. :)