Pyyhrus of Epirus

**Wolfman** · 08-13-2007, 00:12

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?

**Bootsiuv** · 08-13-2007, 00:23

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.

**abou** · 08-13-2007, 00:30

He was related to Alexander through Alexander's mother. Her name was Olympia and was from Epeiros.

**MarcusAureliusAntoninus** · 08-13-2007, 02:09

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.

**Wolfman** · 08-13-2007, 02:50

Yes I like the Macedonians for the same reasons.

**keravnos** · 08-13-2007, 06:36

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

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.

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...

What could a unified empire do with a man like Krateros in its lead.

The other Diadochoi, well, they never would accept such a thing, nobody would in their place.

**KARTLOS** · 08-13-2007, 06:47

Originally Posted by keravnos

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...

What could a unified empire do with a man like Krateros in its lead.

The other Diadochoi, well, they never would accept such a thing, nobody would in their place.

i agree

**Morte66** · 08-13-2007, 19:36

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.

**Andronikos** · 08-13-2007, 20:42

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

**Ludens** · 08-13-2007, 21:03

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.