The Collapse of Alexander's Empire
I’ve written two posts about the Fall of Rome, and I anticipate writing more about it in the future. But I’ve spent two posts talking about Rome, and I want to make sure that I am also talking about ancient Greece, because the Classics encompass both. Since I’ve talked about the fall of the Roman Empire, well, the West at least, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about the collapse of Alexander’s empire.
Now, I’m not going to get into the argument about whether the Macedonians were Greek or not. Not too many people care, other than the modern Greeks and Macedonians. If you would like my two cents on the matter, please leave a comment, and I’ll write something about it in the future. And it might be strange for me to be discussing the end of Alexander’s Empire because, unlike the Roman Empire, it’s pretty clear why it collapsed. Alexander died without an heir, and the fighting amongst his generals led to the empire's division. There’s no debate, though I’m sure there’s a niche debate somewhere in the academic world or on some part of the Internet.
Why am I writing this then, when we have an answer? I’m writing this because I think it would be interesting to compare the collapses of the two classical empires, but also to make a few points along the way. Not to mention, the comparison could be helpful, if not only to eliminate reasons why Rome fell.
The apparent reason Alexander’s empire died was that he died without an heir. I’m sure world conquering and empire forging is exhilarating, but it doesn’t mean anything if you leave your throne empty when you die. But let’s take a closer look at that. Alexander clearly was a conqueror and an empire forger, but the man didn’t create a dynasty, and ultimately, that’s why the empire fell.
However, that may be too simplistic of a view. Indeed, some people could have taken the throne after Alexander, and I am not talking about members of the royal family; I’m talking about his generals. Yes, Alexander did have a half-brother, and there’s a story there of how he was propped up on the throne, but I am talking about his generals. And I think Alexander knew it too when, with his last dying words, he said his empire would go “to the strongest.”
We know that Alexander’s generals could rule an empire because after he died, they split his empire and ruled over its parts. Ptolemy in Egypt is probably the best-known example because Ptolemaic Egypt lasted until Cleopatra’s death. So, Alexander could have declared someone in his close circle, a general, to be his heir. If Alexander’s last words were truly “to the strongest,” it suggests he knew those around him could rule the empire. However, since none were his clear successor, this would lead to infighting.
And here’s what needs to be considered when talking about Alexander’s empire: it was new. The Macedonian empire, we can say, began with Philip’s, Alexander’s father, conquest of Greece. Philip was assassinated, and Alexander took the throne, and the Greeks revolted. Then, after suppressing the Greek revolt and destroying Thebes in the process, he declared that he would go and invade the Persian Empire as his father intended. So, this was an empire, which is perhaps a loose word to use during Philip’s reign, that only spanned two generations.
The Macedonian Empire wasn’t developed as the Roman Empire was when it fell, far from it. And the Macedonians didn’t have the institutions for governing an empire as large as Alexander’s. The Macedonians relied on the structure that the Persians already had in place. The Greeks didn’t eliminate satrapies; instead, Alexander awarded people satrapies. They hadn’t developed an administrative system to govern a large land mass like the former Persian Empire.
And I think this is a hidden cause of the Macedonian Empire’s sudden collapse. The Macedonians were great warriors and conquerors, but they just took what was already there. And I think this is part of the reason why Alexander wasn’t too concerned with an heir.
Yes, the man was incredibly ambitious and would go and go until he dropped dead or conquered the world. Still, when you largely inherit the governing system of the empire you conquered, governing isn’t at the forefront of your mind. Why would it be? You have a system that works, so you appoint people you trust to be satraps, and things run pretty much the same as they did under the Persians. There’s no stress, and that was the problem. Nothing prompted the Macedonians to consider how they would consolidate their rule over the lands they had conquered.
There wasn’t stress in that regard, and I believe if there was a need to create an administrative system, then Alexander would have done that first, consolidated his power, and resumed conquest. However, the Persian Empire's structure allowed the Macedonians to adopt the same governing system, inadvertently complementing the Persians. This enabled Alexander to focus on eastward conquest without worrying too much about succession, a topic closely tied to governance.
I could be wrong on that, I’m human after all, but I think it's an interesting theory. However, it is a fact that the Macedonian Empire died with Alexander, indicating it was centered around one man rather than a larger entity. I mentioned earlier that it might be a stretch to say the Macedonian Empire was an empire under Philip. However, it was an empire under Alexander, and there’s no question.
But was it a fully formed empire? No. I think that much is clear because the whole thing was centered around Alexander, and when he died, the thing collapsed. The empire didn’t outlive its creator, and while that’s telling, it suggests the empire was more about conquest than ruling a vast territory, indicating a larger identity had been established. The Greeks, being the lovable nationalistic bunch that they were in antiquity, revolted when Alexander died, much like they had done after Philip's death. There was no unifying identity; Alexander was the identity.
In contrast, Rome had an established identity, which was formed centuries before it became an empire, under both the Republic and the monarchy, and it was successfully integrated into that empire. For those of you who are more observant, you might have noticed that I’ve said “Alexander’s Empire” more times than I have said “Macedonian Empire.” Is that a conscious choice? No, I naturally refer to it as Alexander’s Empire. But, knowing that I have to have some diversity of word choice, when writing this, I also decided to call it the “Macedonian Empire.”
This anecdote illustrates how strongly Alexander is associated with his empire. I know it’s supposed to be called the Macedonian Empire, but in my head, I have to force myself to call it that. So, that begets the question of whether it should even be called an empire. Yes, it was a vast territory, and Alexander ruled over many different peoples. But compared to the longevity of Rome (which I remind you saw most of its expansion during the Republic), should we even bother calling it an empire? I don’t know, and that’s a discussion for another time, though I view Alexander’s Empire as a forged sword that didn’t have time to cool.
Then there is the question of whether it wasn’t an empire, then what was it? Again, that’s a discussion for another time. What I want to end on is that Alexander’s heirs could have saved the empire, but the chances of them doing it were slim. They attempted to maintain unity, particularly by elevating Alexander’s mentally challenged half-brother to the throne as Philip the Second. Additionally, if Roxanne, one of Alexander’s wives, had a son, Philip would then reign as regent until the young king could ascend to the throne.
That didn’t last for long, though, and we got the empire split up and got the Diadochi Wars instead. Much like usurpations during the Crisis of the Third Century, there was instability after Alexander’s death. Nature abhors a vacuum both in physics and in politics, so even if Alexander had an heir and his generals worked things out amongst each other. There was still a chance of usurpation because if one of them felt they weren’t getting what they deserved or were being excluded from the new regime, they could rebel, given their access to the armies.
I know this isn’t as long a post compared to the ones I've written on Rome’s fall, but there’s less to argue about because there is more certainty. Anyways, I hope that I got you to think about the collapse of Alexander’s Empire in more depth than you might have otherwise. That’s it! If you haven't already, please consider subscribing (it’s free). Also, feel free to share this post and publication with anyone who might enjoy them. Thanks for reading!