Changes

[[File: Alex One.jpg|200px250px|thumb|left| Alexander the Great]]__NOTOC__Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) was probably one of the greatest general generals of all time, and his conquests and brief reign changed the history of the world. Once the great Macedonian had dreamt of a universal Empire that encompassed the known world. However, the realm that he created did not long survive was short lived and quickly fragmented. Within a few years of his death, Macedonian generals had divided his territories into some different Hellenistic states. Several factors caused the sudden collapse of the Empire that Alexander built. These include the early and the rather unexpected death of the great king, absence of a capable successor, rebellious generals, and the sheer extent of the territories, all meant that the vast Empire collapsed into a series of warring kingdoms.

Within a few years of his death, Macedonian generals had divided his territories into various Hellenistic states. Several factors caused the sudden collapse of the Empire that Alexander built. These include the early and the somewhat unexpected death of the great king, absence of a capable successor, rebellious generals, and the size of the territories Alexander had invaded. Instead of creating a vast empire, Alexander's dream collapsed into numerous warring kingdoms. ====Background==How did Alexander create his Empire?==Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia after the death of his father, Phillip II. He had inherited a powerful kingdom and a full an overflowing treasury, but above all, he had inherited took control of the Macedonian army which often regarded by scholars as among the greatest one best fighting forces in the history of warfare. After putting down a rebellion in Greece and securing Macedonia’s frontiers, he launched an invasion of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which spanned much of Western Asia. He claimed that he was waging a war of revenge in retaliation for the two previous Persian invasions of Greece.<ref> Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, I, 56</ref>

At the battle of Gaugamela, he utterly defeated wrecked Darius II 's army and went on proceeded to annex all of Persia. The Macedonian monarch pursued Darius II into Central Asia, who but failed to capture him before he was later assassinated by one of his generals. Alexander’s conquests provided a great administrative challenge, and he adopted the Persian system of satrapies or semi-autonomous territorial units, which were ruled by his Macedonian lieutenant. He also chose a conciliatory policy towards the Persians, as evidenced by his treatment of the family of Darius’Darius.<ref> Plutarch. Life of Alexander, v, ix</ref>

Alexander alienated many of his generals by his actions. In particular, they disliked the fact that he began to assume the prerogatives and manners of an Oriental monarch and was introducing Persians into the army.<ref> Arrian, 4, 67</ref> The conqueror was not content with his vast domains and wanted to conquer the known world. He invaded north-west India and successfully annexed several kingdoms before his troops mutinied and forced him to turn back. The retreat from India was a disaster, and many died crossing the Gederosian Desert. Alexander returned to Babylon, but he soon developed a fever and fell gravely ill and died at the age of 32 in 322 323 BC.

 ====Civil War and Disintegration==Who took control of Alexander's Empire after his Death?==

The Alexander's generals in the army soon usurped control of the Empire. They at first agreed to cooperate and to hold together the Empire together in the name of Alexander’s brother , who was crowned King Phillip III. Alexander’s infant son from his wife Roxana was made co-ruler with Phillip III after his birth. The royal family was sent to Macedonia to the royal capital at Pella. The great general Perdiccas was the Regent, and he was technically the supreme commander of the army. Immediately there were problems, and the because Macedonian generals began to pursue their interests and formed private armies. There were several conspiracies involving members of the dead king’s extended family. Moreover, many of the generals became suspicious of Perdiccas who seemed to be seeking to make himself sole ruler of the Empire of Alexander.<ref> Hornblower, Simon, and Spawforth, Tony. Who's Who in the Classical World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 238 </ref> This led to the first War of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander. By 321 AD Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt was acting like an independent ruler, and when he seized the body of Alexander, it was seen as an attempt to make himself the great general’s heir. Perdiccas attempted to invade Egypt, but he bungled the crossing of the Nile, and his generals later assassinated him. Antigonus defeated Eumenes, who had regarded himself as the successor of Perdiccas and he became the most powerful ruler in the lands conquered by Alexander.<ref> Hornblower and Spawforth, p. 167</ref>

HoweverMoreover, much many of the Empire was outside generals became suspicious of Perdiccas, who appeared to be seeking to elevate himself to the emperor of his controlAlexander's kingdom.<ref> Hornblower, Simon, and Antigonus sought Spawforth, Tony. Who's Who in the Classical World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 238 </ref> This led to reunite all the lands that had been formerly controlled, by First War of the greatest Macedonian kingDiadochi or Successors of Alexander. There were three more civil warsBy 321 AD, Ptolemy, between the successors satrap of Egypt, was acting as an independent ruler. Ptolemy then seized Alexander that ravaged 's body, which was perceived as an area from Greece attempt to Central Asiaanoint himself as Alexander’s heir. At this time, Seleucus was forced Perdiccas attempted to concedeinvade Egypt, but he bungled the satrapies in India to crossing of the rising regional superpower the Mauryan kingdomNile, and his generals later assassinated him. The fourth Diadochi war was decided at Antigonus defeated Eumenes, who had regarded himself as the Battle successor of Ipsus (301 AD). Here Antigonus was defeat Perdiccas, and he became the most powerful ruler in the lands conquered by a coalition led by SeleucusAlexander. <ref> Hornblower and Spawforth, p 189. 167</ref>

The aftermath However, much of the battle Empire was the final partition outside of the Macedonian Empire. There were no further attempts his control, and Antigonus sought to reunify reunite all the lands conquered by Alexander the Great. After some There were three more civil wars, by 280 BC, Alexander’s conquests were finally divided between the Seleucids in Alexander's successors that ravaged an area from Greece to Central Asia. At this time, Seleucus was forced to concede the Ptolemies satrapies in EgyptIndia to the rising regional superpower, and the Antigonids in MacedoniaMauryan kingdom. These kingdoms proved durable, and The fourth Diadochi war was decided at the successor states endured for roughly 200 yearsBattle of Ipsus (301 AD). Here Antigonus was defeat by a coalition led by Seleucus. <ref>Hornblower and Spawforth, p 189</ref>

====The early death of How did Alexander==the Great Die?==

Alexander died after a short illness in the former palace of the Babylonian kings. The sudden demise of a man who seemed a force of nature and widely seen as a demi-god shocked even his enemies. Many, at the time, believed that he was poisoned possibly by one of his generals. There had been conspiracies before aimed at Alexander such as the ‘Conspiracy of the Pages’Pages.’ <ref>Arrian, 6, 7</ref>

The Alexander's sudden removal of this pivotal figure death allowed ambitious individuals to pursue their interestsat the expense of the greater Empire. The death of Alexander meant that the army did not have a single leader. Rival generals ignored their superiors and followed their interests, and this was to the detriment of the unity of the Empire. Immediately after the death of Alexander, at the Compromise of Babylon, which prevented a civil war, the generals divided the conquests into their respective spheres of influence.<ref>Shipley, Graham. The Greek World After Alexander. Routledge History of the Ancient World. (Routledge, New York, 2000), p 113</ref> ==What happened to Alexander's Empire after his Death?==While Alexander left a will, ordering further conquest and ambitious construction projects, he failed to the state should succeed him and wear the crown. The death of Alexander meant that his throne and all his realms should have passed to his heir.<ref> Shipley, p 17 </ref> This was far from straightforward. He had an infant son, but he was declared to be illegitimate. His lawful wife was pregnant, but it was not certain if the baby would live or if it would be a male.

====Lack Under Macedonian succession law, only males could be crowned. However, his half-brother was alive and was in his twenties. Under the Compromise of a successor====Remarkably while Alexander left a willBabylon, ordering further conquest and ambitious construction projects he did not state who should succeed him and wear the crownwas recognized as Philip III Arrhidaeus. The death of He had accompanied Alexander meant that on all his throne campaigns and all was present at his realms should death. Phillip appears to have passed to his heirhad some intellectual disability and was not capable of ruling.<ref> Shipley, p 17 </ref> This was far from straightforwardHe soon became the pawn of the generals and especially Perdiccas. He had an infant son but When Roxanne, Alexander’s wife gave birth to a boy, he was declared named Alexander IV of Macedonia. Perdiccas sent them to be illegitimatePella where they were held as virtual prisoners. His lawful wife was pregnant The real power lay now with the generals, but it was not certain if and the heirs of Alexander were only puppets. Phillip III and Alexander IV were both assassinated and with them ended the baby would live or if it would be a maleline of Alexander.

Under Macedonian succession law only males could be crownedThe lack of an able and mature successor meant that the Empire was almost bound to fall into a state of civil war. However, his half-brother was alive and When there was no clear succession plan in kingdoms in his twenties. Under the Compromise ancient world instability inevitably followed the death of Babylon, he was recognized as Philip III Arrhidaeusthe monarch. He had accompanied Alexander on all his campaigns and was present Without a strong king at his death. Phillip appears to have had some intellectual disability the head of the army and was not capable the state, power fell into the hands of ruling. He soon became the pawn of strongest, and these were the generals and especially Perdiccas. When RoxanneThey had become very ambitious, Alexander’s wife gave birth to a boy, he was named as even during the lifetime of Alexander IV . Many of Macedonia. Perdiccas sent them to Pella where when they were held served as virtually prisonerssatrapies often acted like independent monarchs. The real lack of a ruler meant that power lay now with passed to the generals and they began a series of power struggles that caused the heirs unified Empire of Alexander were only puppets. Phillip III and Alexander IV were both assassinated and with them ended the line to fragment into a series of Alexanderdifferent successor states. <ref>Shipley, p 15</ref>

The lack == Was Alexander's Empire too Large to Control after his Death? ==Alexander's early death and the absence of an able and mature successor meant heir that could control the Empire was almost bound to fall into a state ambitions of civil war. When there was no clear succession plan in kingdoms the generals and others were crucial factors in the ancient world instability inevitably followed the death disintegration of the monarchEmpire. Without a strong king at the head of the army and the stateHowever, power fell into the hands of the strongest some argue that even if there had been an orderly succession and these were the generals. They army had become very ambitiousremained united, even during the lifetime of Alexanderit would have fragmented in due course. Many of them when they served as satrapies often acted like independent monarchsAlexander’s realm's sheer extent is estimated to have been 2 million square miles (5 million kilometers). The lack of a ruler meant that power passed to the generals Communications were very slow, and they began a series of power struggles that caused the unified Macedonian Empire of Alexander to fragment into a series of different successor stateswas very diverse and divided by religion, ethnicity, and language.<ref>Shipley, p 15</ref>

====The Scale of the Empire====The early death of Alexander and had the absence of any heir that could control the ambitions of the generals charisma and others, were very important factors in the disintegration of authority to impose his will on the Empireregions. However, there are those who argue that even if there he had been an orderly succession to give his governors a great deal of autonomy and the army had remained united that it would have fragmented in due coursewas troubled by rebellious satraps <ref> Arrian, 5, 78</ref>. The sheer extent of Alexander’s realm is estimated to vast Empire would have been 2 million square miles (5 million kilometres). Communications at very hard to keep together even had the time were very slow great conqueror lived andhad a capable successor. Once he died, furthermore, there was no central authority to maintain unity. The scale of the Macedonian Empire territories was such that it was very diverse almost impossible to govern effectively. Instead, local military leaders often usurped entire provinces with impunity and divided by religionbecame de-facto independent. This situation repeated itself with Ptolemy in Egypt, ethnicitySeleucus in Babylon, and languageLysimachus in Thrace.

Alexander had the charisma and authority to impose his will on the regions. However, even he had to give a great deal of autonomy to his governors and was troubled by rebellious satraps <ref> Arrian, 5, 78</ref>. The vast Empire would have been very hard to keep together even had the great conqueror lived and had a capable successor. Once he died there was no central authority to keep the territories united. The scale of the territories was such that it was almost impossible to effectively govern. This meant that local military leaders often usurped entire provinces with impunity and became de-facto independent. This was the case with Ptolemy in Egypt, Seleucus in Babylon and Lysimachus in Thrace. The sheer scale of the conquests of Alexander allowed generals to carve out often vast large states. Moreover, the regions required these local strongmen, who could deal with issues on the spot. Only they could maintain order and defend the frontiers because any central authority would have been too far away and distant.<ref>Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990), p 113</ref> The need for these strong local rulers was another factor in the break-up of one of the largest Kingdoms in world history.

====Conclusion====In an astonishingly brief period, Alexander conquered a huge Empire. However, it just as quickly collapsed it fragmented into a series of warring Empires and Kingdoms. Strictly speaking, the Empire of Alexander only lasted a little more than a decade and could be said to have begun to break up after his burial. The cause of the collapse of the great realm can be attributed to several factors. The first was the Alexander's early death of Alexander , which left his kingdom in a state of disarray and , more importantly , meant that the army was no longer under central control.  The generals became the de-facto rulers of the Alexander's lands conquered by Alexander and fought many civil wars to secure a share of the spoils. Then there was no successor to the Macedonian monarch , only an infant and a man who had some form of developmental deficit. The sheer scale of the territories conquered by Alexander also contributed to the fragmentation of the Empire.

Erskine, Andrew (ed.). <i>A Companion to the Hellenistic World </i> (Hoboken, Wiley, 2008)

Lewis, D. M., John Boardman, and Simon Hornblower. <i>Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 6: The Fourth Century BC. </i> 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Hammond, N.G.L., Walbank, F.W. and Griffith, G.T., <i>A History of Macedonia: 336-167 BC </i> (Vol. 3) ( Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988).

Smith, S., 1925. "The Chronology of Philip Arrhidaeus, Antigonus and Alexander IV. " <i>Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie Orientale</i>, 22(4), pp.179-197.