Org Mobile Site
Thread: Most legitimate diadochi?
I´ve been wondering for some time, which of the diadochi (the sucessors of megas alexandros) nations could be more "legitimate" heirs of Alexander. I know there is probably not a single answer, but who do you think deserves more to claim that title?
I personally think that the Arche Seleukeia are the most close to the idea that Alexander had for this empire. While there was a elite macedonian class, they also mixed a lot with the native persians and developed the idea of the greek-persian culture, adopting many local customs. In many ways fullfilling the wishes of Alexander.
Who diadochi do you think was more worthy of reuniting Alexander´s empire? There were any diadochi which supported the heir of Alexandros (iirc it was Perdicas) and were no involved in the assasinations?
I know, a very heated topic. Let´s hope it can be discussed without much problems. I just want to know which diadochi would have Alexander supported, if he were alive.
I personally think that the Arche Seleukeia are the most close to the idea that Alexander had for this empire. While there was a elite macedonian class, they also mixed a lot with the native persians and developed the idea of the greek-persian culture, adopting many local customs. In many ways fullfilling the wishes of Alexander.
Who diadochi do you think was more worthy of reuniting Alexander´s empire? There were any diadochi which supported the heir of Alexandros (iirc it was Perdicas) and were no involved in the assasinations?
I know, a very heated topic. Let´s hope it can be discussed without much problems. I just want to know which diadochi would have Alexander supported, if he were alive.
Originally Posted by Bucefalo:
?
I just want to know which diadochi would have Alexander supported, if he were alive.
The Strongest?
I just want to know which diadochi would have Alexander supported, if he were alive.
Difficult question. Alexandros IV and Philipos Arrhidaios were true heirs. I am not fan of Kasandros, because he was behind their murder. Ptolemy was not interested in reuniting the emipre, he understood that it is impossible and wanted to reign only in Egypt. Perhaps Seleukos had the best starting position and was able to do that. But my favourite successor dynasty are Antigonids and Antigonos was on a good way to control large part of emire, but he stood against very powerful aliance.
Originally Posted by :
The Strongest
AKA you will fight to be the strongest but the only result will be that you will destroy each other and I will remain the one and only Megas (it is a funny idea of Alexandros saying it with this on mind)The Strongest
Well this is really an interresting question and as you said there is no single answer.
I think Alexander didn't wish his empire to be torn apart like it had been. The point when he married about 1000 of his soldiers and nobles to persian maidens and took a persian wife himself (I quess one of the daughters of Darius III although I'm not sure about that right now) seems to suggest this.
Also his last words are a matter of debate. It has been quoted alot that when asked who should inherit his throne Alexandros said "toi kratisto" - "to the strongest", however it was rumoured that he actually said "Craterus" the name of one of his friends and infatry commanders, but the generals around him simply refused to hear that answer and rather took out the meaning of the strongest so that one of them should be seen as "the successor".
Now back to the question: I agree that the Seleukids possibly came closest to what Alexander had imagined his empire to be like in the future. From that point of view I would consider them the true successors of the great conquerer even though they failed in the conflict against Rome. There rulers were Heterogenes and descended from Seleucus and his wife of persian descent (and stayed with her for the rest of his time while most other Makedones left there "Susa wifes" later on). I find it truly amazing what he had achieved during his life: from an officer to general to King of the east and almost King of Makedonia also if he had not been killed ....
The possibly next in line would have been Ptolemy and his heirs. Although I personally dislike them to some extent for several reasons it must be admitted that they were one of the most succesfull diadochi for a long time. That Ptolemy stole the body of Alexandros leads back to a Makedonian traditon: the new King had to give the passed one a decent burial and legitimize his own rule with it. The rumors of Ptolemy being an illigemate son of Philippos II (Alexanders Father) could even give him some right to the throne
The biggest problem I find in them is that Ptolemy and his heirs never tried to reunite the empire of Alexandros but stayed with ruling only Aigyptos. This solid objective and the fact that they stayed out of the Diadochi wars gave them a secure position of rule. The adoption of old egyptian customs decreases there claim however. So does the way they ruled: they considered the Egyptians lower peoples and relied on nobles an soldiers of Makedonian, Hellenic, Galatian and other nationalities to "keep the native peoples in check" - this stands in the opposite of what Alexandros had intended.
Of the other Diadochi I would not speak at the moment. I find the two above to be the most legitimate heirs (by deed, power and position) to the Empire of Megas Alexandros.
(I really wonder what Maion would have said on this matter.....
)
I think Alexander didn't wish his empire to be torn apart like it had been. The point when he married about 1000 of his soldiers and nobles to persian maidens and took a persian wife himself (I quess one of the daughters of Darius III although I'm not sure about that right now) seems to suggest this.
Also his last words are a matter of debate. It has been quoted alot that when asked who should inherit his throne Alexandros said "toi kratisto" - "to the strongest", however it was rumoured that he actually said "Craterus" the name of one of his friends and infatry commanders, but the generals around him simply refused to hear that answer and rather took out the meaning of the strongest so that one of them should be seen as "the successor".
Now back to the question: I agree that the Seleukids possibly came closest to what Alexander had imagined his empire to be like in the future. From that point of view I would consider them the true successors of the great conquerer even though they failed in the conflict against Rome. There rulers were Heterogenes and descended from Seleucus and his wife of persian descent (and stayed with her for the rest of his time while most other Makedones left there "Susa wifes" later on). I find it truly amazing what he had achieved during his life: from an officer to general to King of the east and almost King of Makedonia also if he had not been killed ....
The possibly next in line would have been Ptolemy and his heirs. Although I personally dislike them to some extent for several reasons it must be admitted that they were one of the most succesfull diadochi for a long time. That Ptolemy stole the body of Alexandros leads back to a Makedonian traditon: the new King had to give the passed one a decent burial and legitimize his own rule with it. The rumors of Ptolemy being an illigemate son of Philippos II (Alexanders Father) could even give him some right to the throne
The biggest problem I find in them is that Ptolemy and his heirs never tried to reunite the empire of Alexandros but stayed with ruling only Aigyptos. This solid objective and the fact that they stayed out of the Diadochi wars gave them a secure position of rule. The adoption of old egyptian customs decreases there claim however. So does the way they ruled: they considered the Egyptians lower peoples and relied on nobles an soldiers of Makedonian, Hellenic, Galatian and other nationalities to "keep the native peoples in check" - this stands in the opposite of what Alexandros had intended.Of the other Diadochi I would not speak at the moment. I find the two above to be the most legitimate heirs (by deed, power and position) to the Empire of Megas Alexandros.
(I really wonder what Maion would have said on this matter.....
)Lysimachos. It's a shame he died so early :<
I actually wonder about this every once in a while, and I've gotten to thinking: what exactly did Alexandros say on his deathbed (in greek)? is "to the strongest" really what he meant?
Antigonos, he was the original :-p Plus you have to be pretty awesome to be a 81 year old man with one eye charging into battle without any armor.
Pyrrhus, he was a cousin of Alexander and prooved to be a great general.
Originally Posted by Ibrahim:
I actually wonder about this every once in a while, and I've gotten to thinking: what exactly did Alexandros say on his deathbed (in greek)? is "to the strongest" really what he meant?
Like I said it is very debated, I think if he was poisoned by some of his leading men then the poisoner(s) would have tried to influence what was said of alexnadros and his last words. The "Miss-hearing of Craterus" is also a possibility. Some of his Generals clearly wanted a piece of the empire for themself - would denying or changing the last words of there dying ruler been too much for them or not?I actually wonder about this every once in a while, and I've gotten to thinking: what exactly did Alexandros say on his deathbed (in greek)? is "to the strongest" really what he meant?
Also over 2000 years later it is almost impossible to say what really happened.
Originally Posted by Phalanx300:
Pyrrhus, he was a cousin of Alexander and prooved to be a great general.
He might have claimed that Alexandros talked to him in his dreams, but while his famous ancestor simply could not stop conquering, Pyrrhus often simply interrupted his campaings without really finishing them. I don't mean his campaing against Rome - he was simply outmaned but still managed to gain many victories (more than anyone had expected) at high costs.Pyrrhus, he was a cousin of Alexander and prooved to be a great general.
He was no doubt very popular among the Hellenes - during his first invasion of Makedonia the soldiers simply went over on his side. But after the galatians (whom he had entruested to guard) had sacked some of the royal tombs his popularity dropped alot. No wonder they didn't welcome him with open arms later on.
Also his war on the Peleponesos proved fathel for him and his son. I don't question that he was a great general, but he simply didn't quite fit into the picture of a new Alexander in some aspects.
His death was truly tragical - one not meant for a great general like him....
Thanks all for the answers, it is a very interesting subject indeed.
I also agree that we could never be sure of what Alexander really said, it is something that history will always hide from us, as it was probably a very closely guarded secret from the very day that Alexander died. But althought we may never know what Alexander really said, we can do a wild guess about which of the diadochi more closely followed the steps that alexander started. In that case it is the Seleukids as HunGeneral has very well pointed.
But what about the rest? I mean, many of Alexander´s soldiers and generals were unhappy about how him treated the persians (the vanquished) and how he married persian women. What side do you think that those "conservative" men would have taken in the diadochi wars? I mean, we know that the Seleukids followed a similar model to what Alexander would have liked. But what about his soldiers and generals who also conquered an empire (Alexander didn´t do it alone you know), how would be their prefered empire, maybe something like the Ptolemy, with a ruling elite greek class and not mixing much with the natives?
I also agree that we could never be sure of what Alexander really said, it is something that history will always hide from us, as it was probably a very closely guarded secret from the very day that Alexander died. But althought we may never know what Alexander really said, we can do a wild guess about which of the diadochi more closely followed the steps that alexander started. In that case it is the Seleukids as HunGeneral has very well pointed.
But what about the rest? I mean, many of Alexander´s soldiers and generals were unhappy about how him treated the persians (the vanquished) and how he married persian women. What side do you think that those "conservative" men would have taken in the diadochi wars? I mean, we know that the Seleukids followed a similar model to what Alexander would have liked. But what about his soldiers and generals who also conquered an empire (Alexander didn´t do it alone you know), how would be their prefered empire, maybe something like the Ptolemy, with a ruling elite greek class and not mixing much with the natives?
Makedonia is by far the most legitimate Diadochos. The reason is that Antigonos Monophtalmos was the last one to claim the whole of the empire but lost this claim at Ipsos, Demetrios Poliorketes his son going into captivity of Seleukos... All the other Diadochoi at this stage wanted to keep their personal kingdom and stood against a unification under Antigonos.
Ptolemy was the last living brother of Alexander, that means he had the only "legitimate" claim.
Still, Alexander killed his cousins and uncles, it's rumoured he would have killed his brother Philip had it not been for his illness. The sorry state of his Kingdom after his death was his own stupid fault.
Still, Alexander killed his cousins and uncles, it's rumoured he would have killed his brother Philip had it not been for his illness. The sorry state of his Kingdom after his death was his own stupid fault.
Yup, plus he was manipulated by his Generals still in life. I think it was rather self-evident that they would get the booty by then.
I would argue that there WERE no legitimate heirs to Alexander's empire. Alexander was a truly unique personality, with enough tactical skill to continuously defeat larger armies, enough foresight to integrate his Persian conquests as much as possible, and enough charisma to convince his soldiers to follow him thousands of miles from their homes into hostile lands. Perhaps if he had lived onger he might have found some way to make a peaceful transition, but as soon as Alexander died his empire died with him, as none of his generals came even close to having the same persona as he did.
Originally Posted by TKaz84:
I would argue that there WERE no legitimate heirs to Alexander's empire.
I'd second that.I would argue that there WERE no legitimate heirs to Alexander's empire.
Alexander took the tiny (but powerful) nation of Makedonia and conquered hundreds of other independent nations in less than a couple of years. When Alexander hastly passed away, leaving no heir of mature age to establish a dynasty, the status of the conquered nations would be "nullified" and "terra nova" - available for everyone strong enough to conquer them again.
To summarize, Makedonia (and it's ruler) is the legitimate successor of the pre-Alexander makedonian kingdom, and the Empire of Alexander pretty much ceased to exist.
As far as i'm concerned, Perdiccas was fighting for the rights of Alexander's son until he was defeated by Seleucus. Antigonos Monoftalmos, in turn, was firghting to preserve the unity of Alexander's monarchy.
Their actions might have been the closest to "legitimate", but they were completely unrealistic - the most sensible thing to do was the action of Ptolemy, who declared himself king as the first of the diadochii. He knew that fighting for the Argead dynasty or trying to preserve the unity of the empire was a lost cause.
Their actions might have been the closest to "legitimate", but they were completely unrealistic - the most sensible thing to do was the action of Ptolemy, who declared himself king as the first of the diadochii. He knew that fighting for the Argead dynasty or trying to preserve the unity of the empire was a lost cause.
Ah, here begins the Alexander worship. Philip II created the most powerful military and political machine the Greek states had ever known. It included the Cities, the Highlands, and the greater part of Thrace.
What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.
His conquests were the ultimate Gap Year gone wrong. Take a look at the map, after he kills Parmenion at Babylon it all goes to hell.
What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.
His conquests were the ultimate Gap Year gone wrong. Take a look at the map, after he kills Parmenion at Babylon it all goes to hell.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Ah, here begins the Alexander worship. Philip II created the most powerful military and political machine the Greek states had ever known. It included the Cities, the Highlands, and the greater part of Thrace.
What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.
His conquests were the ultimate Gap Year gone wrong. Take a look at the map, after he kills Parmenion at Babylon it all goes to hell.
I agree with you, I also hold Phillip in a higher view then Alexander. I would rather fight with him then with Alexander. Ah, here begins the Alexander worship. Philip II created the most powerful military and political machine the Greek states had ever known. It included the Cities, the Highlands, and the greater part of Thrace.
What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.
His conquests were the ultimate Gap Year gone wrong. Take a look at the map, after he kills Parmenion at Babylon it all goes to hell.
Ouch, that's a harsh statement!
I mostly agree with Calicvla though i think it belittles Alexander's achievements somewhat. Personally i think Philip was the better man, ruler and general.
Would have been interesting to see in which way old Philip would have taken on the Persian Empire.
I mostly agree with Calicvla though i think it belittles Alexander's achievements somewhat. Personally i think Philip was the better man, ruler and general.
Would have been interesting to see in which way old Philip would have taken on the Persian Empire.
Originally Posted by Phalanx300:
I agree with you, I also hold Phillip in a higher view then Alexander. I would rather fight with him then with Alexander.
Less likely to get you killed, isn't he?I agree with you, I also hold Phillip in a higher view then Alexander. I would rather fight with him then with Alexander.
I'm sure you Alexandro bashers should take a good look at one of Kevranos' links on his sig.... =/
Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
Also, I believe Parmenion died in Ekbatana, not Babylon.
Also, I believe Parmenion died in Ekbatana, not Babylon.
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus:
Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
Also, I believe Parmenion died in Ekbatana, not Babylon.
He was murdered while governing Media, the point is that the evidence against him was non-existant and that against his son so flimsy as to be nearly irrelevant.Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
Also, I believe Parmenion died in Ekbatana, not Babylon.
Philip Conquered Greece, Alexander Persia. Of the two Greece was the more complex, Persia merely the larger.
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus:
Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
Sadly that won't be possible because none of us inherited the best army in the world from our father.Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
Originally Posted by penguinking:
Sadly that won't be possible because none of us inherited the best army in the world from our father.
whoa there :)Sadly that won't be possible because none of us inherited the best army in the world from our father.
Yes, Alexander inherited from his father a perfected army and a revolutionary war doctrine ... however from day 1 of his reign he faced challenges both internal and external ...
1. He secured his position by relentlessly executing all his potential political rivals that could question / threaten his rule (princes, heirs , generals)- by our time's measures a harsh decision but a political necessity nevertheless-such was the man's sense of realism and his decisiveness...
2.He faced the revolt of Athens, Thebe (those cities rebelling not once but twice) Thrace,Thessaly and Illyria... to these simultaneous threats he responded with a fervent blitzkrieg that paralyzed his opponents ... crushing them he established his hegemony through examples of cruelty and magnanimity, intimidation and respect... (he razed Thebes but spared Athens )...
so you see nothing was "handed down" to Alexander ... he secured his throne by rights of war and ruthless action that demanded abilities, perception and drive beyond that of most people...
Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS:
whoa there :)
Yes, Alexander inherited from his father a perfected army and a revolutionary war doctrine ... however from day 1 of his reign he faced challenges both internal and external ...
1. He secured his position by relentlessly executing all his potential political rivals that could question / threaten his rule (princes, heirs , generals)- by our time's measures a harsh decision but a political necessity nevertheless-such was the man's sense of realism and his decisiveness...
2.He faced the revolt of Athens, Thebe (those cities rebelling not once but twice) Thrace,Thessaly and Illyria... to these simultaneous threats he responded with a fervent blitzkrieg that paralyzed his opponents ... crushing them he established his hegemony through examples of cruelty and magnanimity, intimidation and respect... (he razed Thebes but spared Athens )...
so you see nothing was "handed down" to Alexander ... he secured his throne by rights of war and ruthless action that demanded abilities, perception and drive beyond that of most people...
Except that he had Attalus and Parmenion in Asia and Antipatar in Greece. Alexander's murder of his brother and cousin were unnessecary, Philip had spared the latter, and his innitial brutality earned him enemies in the Southern Cities until his death. Philip's Hegemony was established through cunning, and without destruction, by his death he had made Macedonia at least moderately acceptable.whoa there :)
Yes, Alexander inherited from his father a perfected army and a revolutionary war doctrine ... however from day 1 of his reign he faced challenges both internal and external ...
1. He secured his position by relentlessly executing all his potential political rivals that could question / threaten his rule (princes, heirs , generals)- by our time's measures a harsh decision but a political necessity nevertheless-such was the man's sense of realism and his decisiveness...
2.He faced the revolt of Athens, Thebe (those cities rebelling not once but twice) Thrace,Thessaly and Illyria... to these simultaneous threats he responded with a fervent blitzkrieg that paralyzed his opponents ... crushing them he established his hegemony through examples of cruelty and magnanimity, intimidation and respect... (he razed Thebes but spared Athens )...
so you see nothing was "handed down" to Alexander ... he secured his throne by rights of war and ruthless action that demanded abilities, perception and drive beyond that of most people...
Given that either Olympias or Alexander had Philip killed the whole sorry mess comes down on the shoulders of those two to begin with. Alexander probably caused the crisis, that he then used it to demonstrate his brutality and ruthlessness does not make him worthy of respect.
It comes down to this, I would serve Philip but not Alexander because the latter would either get me killed or have me killed if I survived his recklessness.
You must kill all your brothers since these are potential usurpers. I think you judge Alexander a bit too much by modern standards. Razing Thebes to the ground was also quite the measure of choice since it had rebelled, and there could never be any forgiveness against rebels, that was the moralty of the time. And what's bad about earning oneself enemies?
Also I question that Philip II. was less brutal than Alexander. Olympias did right in killing him, since he had a pregnant new wife Eurydike and questioned Alexander's position as heir to the throne, resulting in the father-in-law already doing the same. Alexander + Olympias = the winning team.
Also I question that Philip II. was less brutal than Alexander. Olympias did right in killing him, since he had a pregnant new wife Eurydike and questioned Alexander's position as heir to the throne, resulting in the father-in-law already doing the same. Alexander + Olympias = the winning team.
Pyrrhos was the only one who had any blood relationship with Alexandros. He was his cousin on his mother side. This was the reason he was made King of Makedonia (twice) and also why his father lost his throne in the first place. Kassandros had him killed as he was trying to reinforce Alexandros' mother and son, who were in dire need of assistance.
Pyrrhos was sent to Illyria in order to survive.
Pyrrhos was sent to Illyria in order to survive.
Getting yourself murdered for family ties was so common among all Diadochoi that I would probably serve none. Rather I would either side with the Achaean League or the Romaioi, if I was solely looking for less outright treachery of course.
If Alexander lived today, he would rather be a joyous and virile young man practicing sports, and maybe if he had any historical interest playing EB, but he would never ever attain the glory of an ancient Alexander. The circumstances can have a larger effect on the man than whatever attitudes he take.
Originally Posted by :
Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
That comparison is actually fallacious. No matter if I had an army that outnumbered the US Army tenfold and was better trained at every level I would never manage to conquer them successfully. I would rather get nuked to death together with the entire planet and cause the extinction of the human race before. Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.
If Alexander lived today, he would rather be a joyous and virile young man practicing sports, and maybe if he had any historical interest playing EB, but he would never ever attain the glory of an ancient Alexander. The circumstances can have a larger effect on the man than whatever attitudes he take.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO