_JPG.jpg)
No successor:
Alexander III of Macedon, “The Great”, is undoubtedly an icon and one of the most revered rulers in history. Alexander the Great is so, well, great that other prominent historical rulers, like Julius Caesar and Napoleon, admired him as an idol. When Julius Caesar was quaestor in Spain(69BC), he stumbled upon a statue of Alexander and was humbled. Even the first Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar, visited Alexander’s thumb, In Alexandria, to pay his respects.
Alexander the Great was born on July, 356 B.C. to Philip II of Macedon. Philip II was an impressive military general and diplomat. After Philip II assassination, in 336 B.C., Alexander was enthroned as the new King of Macedon. Alexander consolidated his power by ordering the execution of any potential rivals. Shortly after his ascension, Alexander began waging wars and conquering new territories. After 13 years of conquest, Alexander had amassed the world’s largest empire; an empire so vast that it reached from western Greece to modern-day Pakistan (wider than the mainland USA).
Though, in June 323 B.C. Alexander the Great became deathly ill, in Babylon. Alexander had just one unborn son and a handful of ambitious generals to inherit his enormous empire. While Alexander laid on his deathbed, his close friends and generals gathered around him. The generals asked the expiring Alexander to whom would inherit his empire, and Alexander famously responded: “I leave it to the strongest”. Alexander’s dying decision to not chose an heir had several geopolitical impacts throughout Europe and Asia.
Alexander’s decision created a power vacuum. By letting his ambitious generals choose who would helm his empire, he was inadvertently setting them up a civil war. Alexander Left each of his top generals vying for power in order to succeed him as emperor. During the conflict, Alexander’s widow wife and son were murdered. This ferocious civil war resulted in the partitioning of his empire. The massive empire split into multiple different kingdoms--all ruled by one of Alexander’s generals. This left a huge geopolitical impact.
The post-empire kingdoms:
The most powerful successor-state was established by one of Alexander’s most skilled generals, Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic kingdom controlled Egypt for over a hundred years. The Ptolemaic dynasty last from Ptolemy I (306 B.C.) until the Augustus and the Roman empire defeated Mark Antony and deposed of Cleopatra in 40 B.C. The Ptolemaic kingdom housed one of the history’s most robust cities, Alexandria. The city was a middle-eastern powerful--culturally and economically. Alexandria was the paradigm of a Hellenistic society. The amalgamation of Greek and Egyptian culture made it the most diverse cosmopolitan city; this leads to the formation of a more common culture. It was Alexander’s dream to create a homogeneous society with a common culture, and Alexandria was a manifestation of that dream. The city Alexandria paved the way, as a trailblazer, for future Roman societies.
Another successor-state was established by Seleucus, another general. The Seleucids kingdom ruled over the remaining providences of the Persian empire (northern Syria). The Seleucids kingdom was not as strong and administratively coherent as the Ptolemaic kingdom. The kingdom was precariously held together; this was consequence of constant rebellions. The nexus of power within the Seleucids kingdom was the city of Antioch, which was “second only to Alexandria in population, wealth, and opulence.” (Hollister)
The weakest of the successor-states were the Antigonids kingdom, Cassandar Kingdom, and the Lysimachus kingdom—established by more of Alexander's generals. These three kingdom ruled over parts of Macedon and the Greek peninsula. These kingdom had a tenuous grip on the southern Greek polies. This kingdoms lacked strong authority and all were inferior compared to their eastern sibling kingdoms, Ptolemaic and Seleucids.
An easier path for the Roman Empire:
All five kingdoms that arose from the division of Alexander’s empire had similar endings, they were all, eventually, conquered by the Roman Empire (Roman Republic at the time). If Alexander the Great had, instead, named a successor--i.e. his unborn son or a general-- that individual may have been able to maintain control of the massive empire. Thus, it would have been easier for the empire to persist for centuries. A unified empire—which was the largest in the world—would not fall so easily to the Roman Empire. If Alexander’s entire empire had survived beyond his death, then it’s most likely that it would have invaded western Europe, hence, Italy with its young Rome.
If Alexander’s successor’s army did invade western Europe and Italy, it would have prevented the Roman empire from reaching its full potential; and by doing that, it would have changed the tides of history completely. The massive Macedonian/Greek empire would have altered history and the result would be a very different present. Without the Romans, the world’s main religions may have diverged onto errant paths. Christianity would not have developed and spread the same way it did under the Roman Empire. It is plausible that most of Europe would have become more Hellenistic. Today’s European culture would be significantly different, with customs that resembled Greek culture, instead of a Roman one.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Alexander’s choice to not choose a single imperial successor to inherit his empire, but to leave it “to the strongest”, was historically significant because it created geopolitical effects that lead to the growth of the Roman empire. Alexander’s decision lead to the partitioning of his massive empire; In turn, the division of his empire leads to the creation of weaker successor-states. These successor-states were not strong enough, alone, to defend against the Romans, hence making it easier for the Roman empire to propagate throughout the Mediterranean.
By naming a successor, Alexander’s unrivaled empire could have continued to survive and would have, most likely, expanded--invaded Italy. By invading Italy, The Macedonian empire would have an apparent advantage over the Romans—who were in their empire’s infancy. This conquest would have prevented the Roman empire from flourishing and reaching its potential, consequently completely altering history and European culture.
Photos:
Thumbnail:https://www.pappaspost.com/reports-skopje-claim-removal-alexander-great-statue-name-change-airport-attempt-placate-greece/
First: https://www.history.com/news/alexander-the-great-death-cause-discovery
Second:https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-world-history/ap-ancient-medieval/ap-empire-of-alexander-the-great/a/the-rise-of-hellenism
Third: https://www.sutori.com/item/alexander-s-death-brought-the-empire-to-split-it-was-no-longer-as-unified-th
Fourth: https://fineartamerica.com/featured/alexander-the-great-and-raja-por-in-the-battle-of-hydaspes-charles-lebrun.html