Judging from the rise and demise of the great empires in the ancient world, in order for the empire to continue and develop for a long time, there must be a mature organizational structure or a talented leader, otherwise, it will face the danger of falling apart. The Western Roman Empire to The Qin and Han empires in the East are all like this.
Alexander fought for ten years and established an unprecedented empire, but after losing this "genius" leader, the empire immediately faced the danger of splitting.
However, is it true that only a leader like Alexander can avoid the division of the empire? After his death, there have been successors who have tried to unify the empire under their own rule but have been unsuccessful
1. The Macedonian succession system and traditional ideas restricted the unification of the empire and the decline of royal authority
After Alexander's death, succession to the throne immediately became the focus of contention among his generals, which paved the way for the split of the empire. When Alexander died, he did not clearly designate the heir to the throne but only said that he would leave the throne to "the best man " and handed the ring symbolizing power to the cavalry chief Perdiccas, because at this time he was in the position of the general in Babylon highest.
At that time, Perdiccas proposed that the heir to the throne should wait until the birth of Alexander's posthumous son to make a decision. If it was a boy, he would be established as king, and he would act as regent temporarily. However, Perdicas's proposal was strongly opposed by other successors and soldiers: First, although Perdiccas had the highest status at this time, he still did not have enough prestige to be recognized and obeyed by other successors.
The second is that even if Alexander's posthumous son was born as a boy and has the right to inherit the throne, the posthumous son still has half-Iranian blood. This made it unacceptable for the Macedonians who had opposed the Persians to share power with themselves since the Eastern Expedition, not to mention that Perdiccas could use it to hold great power.
The emergence of the phenomenon of double kings is obviously the product of compromise between all parties, but at the same time, it also reflects the imperfection of the Macedonian succession system and the constraints on the unification of the empire. There is no strict primogeniture in Macedonia, as can be seen from the succession of Philip II and Alexander. Philip II won the throne from his nephew, and Alexander was not Philip II's successor. eldest son.
Therefore, the imperfection of the Macedonian inheritance system and the lack of legal heirs at that time made it inevitable that there would be a struggle for the throne, which also paved the way for the split of the empire.
In addition, according to Macedonian tradition, the army and the popular assembly had the power to elect the king, and they could also force the appointment and approve succession outside the normal patrilineal line. However, the statement that "the Macedonian citizens' assembly and the army have the power to elect the king " has always been controversial. It is not clear whether the citizens' assembly and the army elect the king, or they just agree with the former king's decision on the heir.
It is generally believed that the heir to the throne is the person who has the closest relationship with the previous king. Therefore, the fact that Alexander IV and Philip III were co-appointed as kings was essentially a restoration of the Macedonian traditional succession system, and was easily accepted by the successors, regardless of whether they had the ability to rule the empire.
The successor reached an agreement on the succession of the Alexander throne, which can also be said to be the re-use of the Macedonian tradition, which was able to push the two incompetent kings onto the complicated political stage at that time.
After all, the two kings were unable to rule the empire, so the regency and auxiliary government were inevitable. However, under the influence of the Macedonian concept of equality, it was inevitable that other successors would challenge the regency, and this equality tradition also had great constraints on the unification of the empire.
The two kings were unable to rule the empire. Macedonia's tradition of equality and the unformed sense of authority and the tradition of opposing the queen's rule not only made the royal authority continue to decline, but also made the constraints on the successor weaker and weaker.
The centrifugal force of the successors is increasing, and the tendency of the empire to divide is also increasing. From Perdiccas bringing the royal family with self-respect, to Antipater bypassing other successors when he served as regent and appointing Polypekang as the regent of the empire, the concept of the royal family as the co-lord has gradually weakened.
Although Antipater appointed Polypeccan for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the royal family, the latter's prestige and ability could not guarantee the authority of the royal family at all, let alone control other successors, which caused Antigonus to openly rob Rhodes Island A tribute presented to the king.
When Antigonus became stronger and sought unification, the successors no longer cared about the existence of the royal family. In order to establish his rule in Macedon, Cassander even killed Alexander IV and Roxanne, and the royal authority was completely lost.
The empire lost the bond that the successors maintained together, which encouraged the successors' tendency to split. When the royal family perishes, the heirs feel a sense of relief that there is no longer any legitimate heir to the throne, and they cherish their lands more as if they had acquired them with spears. In 306 BC they declared themselves kings without any scruples.
Of course, the successors also knew that it was illegal for them to be kings, so they looked for their own patron saints in their respective dynasties thereafter, deified the kingship, and worshiped the dynasty, so as to establish their legal status.
2. Continuous failure of the unifier among the successors, the parties finally reached a balance of power
If the lack of a strong heir led to the decline of royal authority and the lack of effective control over the heirs, then the two tendencies of unification and division among the heirs were the direct and main cause of the division of the empire. In the end, all parties reached a balance of power and laid the foundation for the three Hellenistic kingdoms.
After Alexander's death, it wasn't local nationalism that threatened his career in Asia, but a rivalry among his former friends. According to Diodorus, when Alexander died, he said, " I foresaw a great battle at my funeral. "
His prophecy soon became a reality. After Perdiccas became the regent of the empire, his desire to unify the empire under his own rule also unfolded step by step. Perdiccas took many measures for this: first, exclude dissidents.
After the cavalry and infantry reached an agreement under the mediation of Unices, Perdiccas used the name of Philip III to remove the infantry general Melieg who had resisted him the most, reducing the resistance to the supreme power.
Secondly, form a province division that is beneficial to oneself. He arranged for powerful successors to be governors far away from Babylon. Ptolemy controlled Egypt, Antipater managed Macedonia, and Akon, who was not strong, became the governor of Babylon.
Third, establish prestige. He personally led his troops to capture the Cappadocia region, which greatly increased his prestige. Because these areas were not completely conquered during Alexander's expedition, but only guaranteed a passage from Europe to the hinterland of Asia.
Although Perdiccas has an extremely strong desire for unification, its disadvantages are also obvious: first, Perdiccas is not widely recognized. Morally, he cannot be compared with Antipater and Craterus, because they are the real defenders of the dynasty's legitimacy and can command local military resources.
Among Alexander's generals, Perdiccas ranked third at most. Since Antipater and Craterus were not in Babylon when Alexander died, Alexander gave Perdiccas the ring symbolizing power.
Second, Perdiccas did not have the heartfelt support of other generals. After Perdiccas became regent, there was nothing to suggest that he trusted anyone. Everyone doubts him, and he doubts everyone, which pits the Heir against him.
Third, Perdiccas' marriage put him in even more trouble. Antipater betrothed his daughter to him, but Olympias wanted him and his daughter Cleopatra in order to win over Perdiccas. In the end, Perdiccas decided to accept Cleopatra. , which made Antipater openly confront him, and made other successors doubt his intention to marry the royal family in order to become king.
Fourth, Perdiccas did not have the absolute military strength to carry out his unification cause. Because Perdiccas made too many enemies, he had to face the hardships of fighting on two fronts. When he went to Egypt, he was murdered by his generals because of the betrayal of his relatives. It can be said that Perdicas's eagerness for success and lack of ability to control his subordinates quickly shattered his dream of trying to put the empire under his own rule.
Compared with Ptolemy, Alexander’s veteran Antipater was not an active advocate for the division of the empire, but after he became regent, he moved the royal family from Asia to Macedonia, which undoubtedly dealt a heavy blow to the unity of the empire itself. Objectively, Macedonia returned to the state before Alexander --- a strictly European country.
Antipater moved the royal family back to Europe so that the royal family's influence in Asia gradually disappeared. To rule Asia, Babylon was an ideal ruling center. Of course, we cannot doubt Antipater’s loyalty to the royal family based on this, because when he died, he did not give the position of regent to his son Cassander but chose Polypecamp. Antipater believed that the latter better represent the interests of the royal family.
But the unity of Antigonus also has its own disadvantages. First of all, Antigonus still did not have the military power to unify the empire. From 319 B.C. to 316 B.C., he was repeatedly defeated in the battle against Uynes, and because Uynes was betrayed by the Silver Shield soldiers, Antigonus was able to defeat Uynes.
Although the strength of Antigonus has greatly increased after occupying " the whole of Asia ", Antigonus still does not have enough strength to defeat the anti-Antigonian alliance formed by Seleucid, Ptolemy, and Lysmachus, and finally had to sign the A.D. Former 311 Agreement. In order to recognize the jurisdiction of other successors over the occupied territories, this agreement was a serious blow to Antigonus' unification ambitions.
Since then, its wars with Seleucus have also suffered continuous failures, and Seleucus had to let Seleucus occupy the territory east of Iran. Second, his character is violent and arrogant, and he is forced to deal with the joint resistance of other successors.
Regarding the alliance of the opponents, Antigonus believed that they were like a flock of birds, as long as a stone was thrown or a roar was made, they would disperse in a herd.
Third, he is not good at appointing generals. After he defeated Younis, he executed Poisson, who had been fighting with him for many years, for the crime of treason, and forced Seleucus away. He could only rely on his son Demetrius militarily.
The expansion of Antigonus' power will inevitably be opposed by other successors, and Antigonus' own disadvantages doomed him to failure. In 302 BC, the anti-Antigon alliance was formed again. In 301 BC, Antigonus died in battle, and his desire to unify the empire also ended in failure.
It was yet another failure of Alexander's successors to unify the empire. After the war, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysmarcus redistributed the imperial heritage, and Seleucus almost occupied most of the territory of the Alexander Empire in Asia. To some extent, the disappearance of Antigonus marks the end of an era, and the idea of a unified empire will gradually be replaced by the reality of regional kingdoms.
Therefore, why did the unifiers fail repeatedly and fail to unify the empire under their own rule? We can also explain it from the following aspects. First of all, they all lack the grandeur of Alexander, and even less widespread support.
The suspiciousness of Perdiccas and the arrogance of Antigonus and Demetrius put them at a distance from Alexander's bearing. In addition, Alexander pursued a policy of ethnic integration for the sake of long-term rule, while his successors opposed the Greek-Macedonian integration with the locals during Alexander’s period. The rejection of non-Macedonians was not conducive to his own rule, nor to the empire’s Unite.
After Alexander's death, all the successors except Seleucus divorced their Iranian wives, and many Iranians who were entrusted with important tasks by Alexander were also purged from the leadership.
They also rejected the beautiful Nice that had been reused during the Philip II and Alexander periods. It is not surprising that this lack of tolerance did not receive widespread support.
Secondly, and more importantly, unifiers have greater ambitions than splitters, which makes it impossible for other successors who still have the traditional concept of Macedonian equality and want to keep their own territory to accept it.
Thirdly, none of the seekers of unification has absolute military superiority to defeat their opponents. Because in successor wars, it is often the successors who form an alliance to jointly deal with the powerful, and share the results after winning, which has become a consistent combat method during this period. This way of fighting keeps the forces of all parties in balance, and the territories they occupy are constantly determined in successive agreements.
Finally, by the time of the agreement in 301 BC, the three parts of Alexander's empire in Asia, Europe, and Egypt were officially divided. Since then, the territory occupied by the successors hardly changed much until they are conquered by the Roman Empire one by one.
3. The reality of the Alexander Empire itself
In the ancient world, any great empire had a limit of its own control, beyond which it would be difficult to be under its own effective control. This can also be seen from the continuous conquest of the frontiers of the empire by the Persian Empire before the Alexander Empire and the Roman Empire after that see.
The territory of Alexander's empire was unprecedentedly vast, from mainland Greece in the west to India in the east, from Egypt and the Persian Gulf in the south to Thrace, the Caspian Sea, and Bactria in the north. In the face of such a huge empire, even if Alexander is alive, can he effectively rule.
But we cannot deny the many measures that Alexander took to strengthen the empire’s rule during his lifetime: First, the capital was set at Babylon, the center of the empire, in order to achieve an effective deterrent to the frontier areas. Because Babylon is in the center of the empire and has been an important economic and cultural center since ancient times.
Second, establish dozens of cities named after Alexander to control strategic locations. It not only relies on the city to achieve effective control of the local area but also attracts and appeases the Greeks—the Macedonians have lived here for a long time. According to Plutarch’s records, there are more than 70 cities established by Alexander, the most famous of which is Alexandria in Egypt. ya.
Third, promote the integration of Greek-Macedonians and locals, and encourage generals and soldiers to marry locals. According to Arrian's records, Alexander held a large-scale collective wedding in Susa, with more than 10,000 people getting married, and Alexander also took the lead in setting an example.
And trained 30,000 Persian youths in the Macedonian way.
Fourth, following the old Persian system, the governor system was implemented, and some Persians were retained and appointed as governors to appease the local people.
Although Alexander took these measures to consolidate the rule of the empire, the long-term stability of the empire was far from guaranteed after his death, because when Alexander died, the construction of the empire was still in its infancy, and the empire had not yet fully digested the conquered territories.
As mentioned earlier, the Cappadocia area in northern Silesia has not been completely conquered, and the Thrace area is often invaded by the northern barbarians, so the young and vigorous Lusmarcus had to be sent to guard the border.
The old Persian system adopted by Alexander—the viceroyalty system—can be said to be an effective way to govern the great empire. This system was also adopted by the later Roman Empire, the so-called provincial system. However, the implementation of the governor system must be supported by a strong central government. If the central government is weak, the governor will often separate one side, forming a trend that cannot be lost.
After Alexander's death, the viceroyal system was still implemented, but it became a way of distributing power to the successors, which was also deeply reflected in the previous agreements signed by the successors. This also fully shows that under the constraints of the Macedonian equality tradition and the unifier's own strength, it is impossible to unify the empire in the hands of one person.
When Antigonus' power crossed the Aegean Sea from Asia and brought Greece into his sphere of influence, he also had to manage Asia by himself, letting his son rule Greece, and recalling him only in times of crisis. When Seleucus tried to annex Macedonia in his later years, he also let his son take charge of Asia in advance.
More importantly, in the era of successors, the favorable conditions for the unification of Eurasia that Alexander ascended to the throne no longer existed. Alexander was able to build such a huge empire, relying on the passion brought by the Eastern Expedition to the Greek-Macedonians, the decline of the rule of the Achaemenid family in Persia, and the political and military talents of Alexander himself.
But these conditions no longer existed at this time, and the Greek-Macedonians had long since lost that enthusiasm for war, which can also be seen from the soldiers' refusal to advance in the Hiphasis River in India. Greece - Macedonian soldiers look forward to returning home to live their traditional lives. They were not interested in staying in Asia, so as soon as they heard the news of Alexander's death, they immediately rebelled in the eastern part of the empire and tried to return to their hometown.
4. Conclusion
To sum up, due to the imperfection of the Macedonian succession system, after Alexander's death, succession to the throne became the focus of contention among all parties, which gradually increased the centrifugal force among the successors.
Although Alexander IV and Philip III were promoted to the political stage and established as kings according to the Macedonian inheritance tradition, their lack of governing ability accelerated the decline of the royal family.
The decline of the royal family weakened its binding force and centripetal force on the successors little by little, so they fought against each other and accelerated the division of the empire. Although in the past forty years, there have been successors who have tried to unify the empire under their own rule, due to the concept of equality in the traditional Macedonian concept and the unformed sense of authority, the unifiers have been constantly challenged, and because of their own insufficiency. Failed one after another.
After all, the Alexander Empire was an empire that rose suddenly. It lacked the necessary preparations for the unification and management of the empire in terms of its own ruling system and the psychology of the people. avoid.
