A lexander 2

Poor Political Planning

The Fall Of Alexander’s Empire

Christopher Hall

April 2, 2009

Research and Writing

Professor Li

2

Christopher Hall

April 2, 2009

Research and Writing

Professor Li

Poor Political Planning

Introduction

The fall of Alexander the Greats Empire was caused by his sudden death. At the time of

Alexander’s death he acquired vast sums of territory which made Greece into a formidable

power. Without his influence the empire had no hopes to staying together. In addition to this,

Alexander never left a direct heir to run the empire. This power vacuum creates conflicts which

divide the empire into the regions ruled by his old generals. This division of land results in the

collapse of his empire. Alexander the Greats is the direct cause of the fall of his Empire.

Alexander the Great was Greece’s greatest leader. With his abilities as a leader he gained

control of a vast territory. This territory stretched from Northern Africa all the way east to

Mesopotamia and eventually into India1. His political wisdom as a general and generosity as a

general kept it his subjects loyal to him. When Alexander was in power, he showed the

conquered territories a remarkable amount of leniency. After his death when his generals ruled

they did not focus on the territories. Instead what they wanted was to seize territory for

themselves.

The biggest mistake that Alexander made was the fact that he never made a succession

plan for after his death. He had created government that relied so heavily on the ruler, that

without one it would collapse. In almost every city or territory he conquered he left the final

decision making up to him. This was fine though as long as Alexander was still leading or had

1 Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History, Revised Edition. New York: Macmillan

Company, 1939 Pg 256

3

chosen a successor with his abilities as a leader. Before Alexander thought of choosing a

successor he died of a sudden mysterious illness. The failure of not choosing a successor then

leads to a weak council being formed, and the death of the heirs to his throne. Unlike Alexander,

the council cannot command the forces it needs to keep it together. This allows for the generals

then to take control of territories for themselves.

Without a succession plan in place Alexander’s empire eventually collapse under the

pressure of no leader. The collapse of the empire begins with the unraveling of the government.

The unraveling of the government begins when Ptolemy takes control of Egypt2. This seizing of

territory makes Peridiccas and Craterus, two member of the new council, wage a war in which

they die in3. Their deaths result in the empire being left the hands of an Ageing Antipater. When

Antipater he takes control he is eighty years old4. His age causes him to delegate his powers to

other generals. This then decentralizes the power even further and leads to the ultimate splitting

into four separate empires.

With the death of Antipater at the age of eighty years old and the powers are spread out

so far that Alexander’s generals are able to seize power for themselves. This leads to a 15 year

war called ‘the War of the successors’5. At the end of the war Alexander’s only heirs are dead

ant he only person who had any interest of reunifying the empire is killed. As a result of this the

empire is split amongst the four remaining generals: Cassandar, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and

2 Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. New York: Scribner Paper Fiction, 1990.

Pg. 6 3 Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World Pg.6

4 M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C. 1932 Reprint, Toronto: Methuen

& Co. Ltd., 1963 Pg. 7 5 Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World Pg.8

4

Seleucus6. In the end though if Alexander had created a succession plan then his empire would

have stayed together.

Alexander’s special abilities to hold the empire together

Alexander the Greats attitude as a ruler and king was based on generosity and political

wisdom. At the very begging he had shown his province’s a remarkable amount of tolerance. He

had not tried to put any artificial schemes in newly conquered countries, but allowed them to

retain their own national institutions7. Although he allowed for cities to retain their own agencies

Alexander divided the power between the different offices. In these countries the governors no

longer have complete control over the whole region8. The division of powers makes it harder for

a city to revolt against him like Thebes had when he took power. Also this allows for him to

retain more direct control over the region. This reorganization of the governmental powers

allowed him to stay in control of his empire while he was expanding it.

At the very beginning of Alexander’s reign he had shown great tolerance towards the

territories that he had conquered. He allows for the cities old religions to still be practice. In

addition to this he allowed for the agencies which the citizens were use to using to stay intact9.

This attitude worked throughout cities such as Babylon, Alexandria, and Egypt10

. In these cities

the citizens became more loyal subjects rather than resentful ones. The reason he had done these

things was that he understood that a happy people would not be a people to revolt against him.

6 Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World pg.8

7 Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great, New York: New York, The Modern Library

[1937], 1939 Pg. 770 8 Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great Pg.771

9 Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great Pg.771

10 Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great Pg.772

5

This meant that he would not have to worry about newly conquered territories rebelling against

his rule.

Alexander’s attitude as ruler was both politically wise and generous. Alexander divided

the newly conquered satrap’s governments. In cities such as Alexandria in Egypt the governor no

longer holds power like he had when the Persians ruled. The government was now split up so as

not one person held complete control over the region. The governor would now only have

control over the internal affairs of the administration. Alexander made so that the treasuries in

these towns were now of the rule of the Governor and appointed an administrator who would

report to him directly. Lastly Alexander made it so that the regions armed force would be free of

the governor and have their own leader who would report directly to him as well11

. This division

of powers then makes it almost impossible for anyone city to revolt against him.

Alexander’s political wisdom allows him to maintain control over his empire. The

division of the governmental powers makes it difficult for regions to revolt against him. Even

with the division revolts still happen such as in Thebes12

. Alexander uses Thebes as an example

to the rest of his empire. He gives Thebes two days to once again come to his side13

. The reason

he does not invade at first was to show his merciful side to other regions the he ruled. When the

city does not rejoin the empire he burns the city to the ground and sells all the survivors into

slavery to help pay the war debt14

. He is so harsh in his punishment to make it clear to other

cities that revolt would not be tolerated and would be severely penalized.

Alexander the Great in addition to being a great ruler was also a great general. As a

general he conquered vast amounts of territory. During his campaigns he learns how to maintain

11

Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great Pg.771 12

Plutarch. Plutarch Lives, VII, Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar (Loeb Classical Library) London:

Loeb Classical Library, 1919 Pg.253 13

Plutarch. Plutarch Lives, VII, Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar Pg. 254 14

Green, Peter. Alexander the Great. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1991. Pg 84

6

rule over his new subjects by fighting alongside his men. Alexander learned that people need

incentives to keep them motivated and obedient. As a general he learned just what motivations

were necessary to keep his men in line. He also learns that these motivations cannot always be

positive but sometimes must be harsh. When someone would act against him his punishment

would be merciless. As general Alexander learns that men must sometimes be pushed to act in

his best interests.

During Alexander’s campaigns he learns what it truly means to rule over vast territories

by fighting alongside his men. Alexander fights with his men at the battles of Hellespont,

Granicus, and the steps of Thebes15

. These battles allow for an insight into the world of a soldier

who is on the front lines of the battle. These battles teach him that his soldiers want three things;

a courageous leader, money, and finally women. Alexander provides all three things his men

desire.

During any battle Alexander was notably always on the front lines of the battle. Plutarch

tells us that at the battle of Granicus Alexander ‘he persisted in his attempts to cross an gained

the opposite banks with difficulty and much ado… and was once compelled to fight pell-mell

and engage his assailants man by man, before his troops who were crossing could form into any

order.’16

Seeing this courage Alexander’s men would find courage within themselves that they

need. This helped motivate them to keep them going. This would alone not be enough to keep

them going though. His men still needed more to keep pushing forward.

As a General Alexander learned what it meant to keep his men motivated to serve him.

He knew that they wanted and needed to be paid and to have women. He addressed the need to

pay them by raiding the treasuries in the newly conquered cities. This allowed him to keep from

15

Plutarch. Plutarch Lives, VII, Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar Pg. 256 16

Plutarch. Plutarch Lives, VII, Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar Pg. 256

7

having to reinstate taxes in Macedonia17

. Alexander knew that keeping taxes down in Macedonia

help win support from the Macedonians when he took over. In a sense he was paying his people

by not taxing them.

Alexander the Great knew that in addition to paying his men and showing courage in the

face of danger his men missed not having their family. He allows his men to have wives in the

cities they had conquered18

. Allowing his men to take wives in these cities served several

purposes. The first purpose is giving the men what they wanted which was a family. A happy

soldier would be a lot more eager to wage battle than a soldier who is unhappy. These families

also gave the soldiers a purpose for defending the city, which was protecting their family. The

soldiers did not want an invasion force to come in and demolish their families so they would

fight harder.

Alexander knew that having families in these towns gave them men a personal interest in

the cities. This interest gave the men another reason to defend it. These Marriages also gave the

citizens a reason not to rebel but instead help him. The reason they would want to help and not

rebel was because Alexander’s men have become a part of their own family. If they did rebel it

would be rebelling against their own blood. These new blood bonds also strengthen local bonds

between the people. He wanted these bonds so as to break down any barriers that existed

between Greeks and the Barbarians19

. If these barriers existed it would make it even more

difficult for him to be able to hold the empire together.

When conquering a city a ruler needs to be able to motivate its people to be obedient to

the new rule. Sometimes the motivation is not always a positive one. Besides being known for

17

Green, Peter. Alexander the Great Pg. 82 18

Green, Peter. Alexander the Great Pg 86 19

Cantor, Norman F. Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth. 2005. Reprint, New York: Harper

Perennial, 2007 Pg 157

8

his generosity, Alexander’s men knew him to be cruel. They knew if they had crossed him in any

way that the punishment for the act would be swift and merciless. In some case such as at the

siege of Tyre it was extremely harsh.

Alexander the great was able to rule his empire because he would punish any opposition

to him. During the siege of Tyre, The Tyrian’s would throw the prisoners of the wall into the

ocean below. In response to this action Alexander severely punished the people. What he did was

allow his men to slaughter every Tyrian soldier alive in the city. Two thousand of the remaining

men were crucified. In addition to this he sold the remaining thirty thousand citizens into slavery.

The reason his punishment was so harsh was to make an example of the city20

. Alexander wanted

to show the rest of the world that poor treatment of his men would not go unpunished. He wanted

to make it clear that if anyone treated them like that again the punishment would be just as harsh.

Alexander the Greats political wisdom as a king and generosity as a general allowed for

him to keep control of his empire. At the beginning of his rule he showed a remarkable amount

of tolerance for his provinces. He allowed the provinces to retain their own national institutions

and did not try to put any artificial schemes in them. Even though he allowed them to keep their

own institution he divided reduced the power each had. The division of powers makes it harder

for a city to revolt against him. This was crucial with the vast amounts of territory he conquered.

As a general he learned what it took to motivate his subjects into action. Sometimes these

motivations were not always positive. Even with the political wisdom Alexander had, he failed to

see what would happen without him.

20

Berrigan, Joseph. "Siege of Tyre and Gaza” Ancient Mesopotamia

joseph_berrigan.tripod.com/ancientbabylon/id34.html (accessed May 1, 2010).

9

Lack of Succession Plan Leads to a Weak Central Government Being Formed

Alexander the Great, one of Greece’s formidable general and emperor’s, empire died at

his death. His sudden death creates a power vacuum which leaves no clear heir to his throne21

.

With no clear succession plan in place, there is no government to run the empire. Without a

leader his generals call a meeting in Babylon22

. The purpose of this meeting was to try and figure

out a ruling body. The generals quickly come to the decision that his direct heirs were unfit to

rule. Instead they elect a council which would be endowed with special powers to rule the

empire23

. The result of this meeting creates a weak central government. This allow for his old

officers to quickly seize territories that they governed for themselves. This sudden seizing of

land leads to conflicts within the empire. These conflicts ultimately then lead to the downfall of

the once great empire. Within a decade of his death his empire is split apart, and his successors,

have carved out territory for themselves24

. Without a strong government there to take control of

the situation there was no hope of Alexander’s empire surviving.

Alexander the Great, one of Greece’s most formidable generals and emperor’s, empire

dies with his death. His death leaves a power vacuum that must be filled. For all practical

purposes though the heirs to his throne do not have the abilities as a leader needed to keep the

empire together. The first choice to his throne was his half brother Philip. Philip was almost the

same age as Alexander and would normally have been the best candidate. Usually in

Macedonian society the brother would have taken the place of the deceased king25

. He would

have been chosen, but the council knew he was not mentally adequate for the position. Phillip

21

Cantor, Norman F.. Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth. Pg.148 22

Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World pg.8 23

The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2004. Pg 396 24

24 M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C Pg. 2

25 Green, Peter. Alexander the Great. Pg 71

10

suffered from epilepsy as well as mental retardation26

. These two factors made it impossible for

him to rule over the empire effectively. This factor then leaves the only other direct heir to the

throne was Alexander’s son Alexander IV.

When Alexander the Great died he left his empire in need of a new ruler. He never left

any succession plan in place. His son Alexander IV was the only remaining direct heir to the

throne with the ruling that Philip was not able to be king. Alexander IV was the product of

Alexander’s political marriage to Roxane27

. The first problem was the fact he was still unborn

when Alexander died28

. His young age made it impossible for him to retain control over the

empire. This meant that he could not rule until he was older. The council knew that he would be

too young and the people would not follow his rule. Alexander’s young age was not the only

driving force behind not electing him to the throne.

There were two problems in electing Alexander’s son to the throne. The first problem

was the fact that he was still too young. At his young age he would not be able to successfully

rule the empire. The second problem of electing Alexander’s son to the throne was the ethnicity

of his son. Roxane the mother of Alexander IV was fully Iranian, which made him half Iranian29

.

Alexander’s Greek soldiers were against having a half Iranian king rule them.30

To them it would

mean that they were being ruled by someone who was inferior to them, a barbarian. Instead the

soldiers believed that only someone who was fully Greek had the right to rule the empire. The

council knew that without the support of the military the empire would not stay together. This

meant that Alexander IV was no longer a viable candidate for the throne. These two issues made

26

Cantor, Norman F. Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth. 2005 Pg. 132 27



M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C Pg. 2 30

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C Pg. 2

11

it impossible to name him as the direct heir to the Kings throne. The ruling of both Philip and

Alexander not being fit to rule alone meant that the issue of who would rule the empire still

needed to be settled.

When Alexander died he left no succession plan for the throne to his empire. With no

clear succession plan in place Alexander’s Generals meet in Babylon. The reason for the meeting

was to establish a form of government to run the empire. At the meeting the generals could not

come to a clear consensus on one person to rule the throne. The one thing they did agree to was

that neither direct heirs could take the seat. So in order to maintain some form of government the

Generals elect to create a council. This council would run the empire in the absence of a suitable

king. It was only suppose to last until Alexander’s son could take control. This council was

comprised of three of Alexander’s Generals: Antipater, Peridiccas, and Craterus31

. Each man was

given special powers within the empire. The first general who was elected to the council was

Antipater32

.

With no direct heir Alexander’s the throne his generals elect a council to govern the

empire. They invest special powers to each member of the three man council. Antipater was the

first man to be elected to the council. Antipater was named elected viceroy of Macedonia33

. The

power given to him as viceroy was to rule over Greece and all the city state within it. In addition

to ruling Greece he was also given command of the Greek army within Greece by the council.34

The rest of the Empire supreme authority was divided up amongst Peridiccas and Craterus.

31

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C Pg. 2 32

Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History Pg. 257 33

Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great, Pg. 815 34

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C. Pg. 2

12

With no clear leader to take control of the empire the generals come to the decision to

create a council charged with special powers. These powers were divided equally amongst the

men of the council. With power to rule Greece given to Antipater the next person to be elected

was Peridiccas. Peridiccas was elected to regent of the empire as a whole.35

His duty was to rule

over the empire and keep it together until Alexander IV could take over. This meant that he was

given the power over the remaining military forces.36

The reason he was given this power was to

allow him to safeguard the empire from falling apart. The only other power left was sole

guardianship of the two kings.37

With the power to rule the empire given to Peridiccas, and the power to rule Greece given

Antipater there really not much room for Craterus. The only two things left for him was the

guardianship over the two kings and Representation of the sovereignty.38

The guardianship of

Philip and Alexander IV was left to Craterus. The reason he was given this position was because

the army elected Philip as regent and Craterus was still the main General of the Army.39

The

council understood the army would be more likely to back their decision if they made him the

guardian of both children. Without this support the council would have no power to rule.

Without the power to rule the empire would be left in ruins. They believed dividing the power in

this way would allow for a strong centralized government, but in reality it did not.

The new government that had been established was really too weak to hold any power

over the empire. The reason being was that the power was split up too much for such a large

territory. Instead of it being held in one hand it was now being held in three. In order for any real

35

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C.Pg.2 36

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C.Pg 3 37



Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. Pg. 6

13

force to be established to help suppress a rebellion the three generals would have to come

together and agree upon it which was time consuming due to transportation of the period. The

time it took for them to meet and create a plan would allow for their enemy to take control. If

one person held the power then they would have no time for the enemy prepare. This was the

first flaw of this type of government. The second flaw in the government was the inner conflicts

amongst the new rulers of the empire.

When electing to create Triumvirate to run the country until Alexander IV was old

enough to rule the Macedonian people severely weekend the government. The Triumvirate was

composed of three generals who were close to Alexander. In addition to this they also had known

one another. This meant that meant that they had some differences amongst themselves.

Antipater did not like Peridiccas because Peridiccas divorced his daughter in order to marry

Cleopatra Alexander the Greats sister so as to solidify his power.40

Craterus did not like

Peridiccas as well because he felt that Peridiccas was to power hungry for the position of

Regent.41

He believed that if Peridiccas had the position and that he would use it to take control

for himself.42

Lastly Craterus and Antipater did not like each other because they both were going

after each of one another’s powers.43

These differences make it almost impossible to agree upon

anything or to bring together their powers as a single entity. With these issues pulling the

government apart it was only a matter of time before it collapsed under the pressure of ruling

over a large populous which is soon does.

40

Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. Pg. 7 41

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C. Pg. 4 42

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C. Pg. 4 43

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C. Pg. 4

14

Weak Centralized Government Allows for Officers to Take Control

Seeing the weakened ruling government, Alexander’s old officers began to divide up the

empire amongst them. The first person to declare themselves a free of the empire was Ptolemy44

.

Ptolemy was originally sent to Egypt as Satrap to the Region. His job was to ensure the

allegiance of the people and the army to the throne.45

Instead of doing this Ptolemy decides to

take power for himself. Within three months of being sent there he soon declares himself

Pharaoh of Egypt.46

To add insult to injury he steals the body of Alexander. He stole the body so

as to solidify his power in Egypt.47

If he buried Alexander then the Egyptians would recognize

him as their leader. This infuriates Peridiccas, the new regent to the empire. In response to this

and declaring Egypt as his own, he declares war on Ptolemy and begins the first series of

conflicts that would break the empire.48

Responding to Ptolemy seizure of Egypt Peridiccas declares war on Egypt. Peridiccas

begins his campaign for Egypt immediately after being named regent. This Campaign ends

disastrously for him. He enters into Egypt not really understanding the terrain of the region. This

leaves him in his men under supplied and ill equipped for the battles that ensue. Being out

matched by their foes the men of Peridiccas had no hopes of winning the battle. This creates

resentment towards Peridiccas. As a result of the ill fated campaign, Peridiccas men stage coup

that claims his life along with the life of Craterus. Craterus was in Egypt offering support at the

new of how the campaign was going. The ramifications of this campaign are felt throughout the

whole empire.

44


Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History Pg. 258 46




15

The loss of Egypt marks the beginning of the end of Alexander’s empire. The only

remaining council member left to rule it is Antipater. He is elected at the conference of

Triparadisus as soul guardian of the heirs and regent to the empire.49

With this election Antipater

becomes the sole leader of the empire. Antipater at this point in time is nearly eighty years old

and is too old to really hold the entire empire together on his own.50

As a result of his age

Antipater further delegates the responsibilities bestowed upon him to his officers. He gives his

friend Antigonus I Monophthalmos the royal army in Asia.51

He then gave Seleucus I the

governorship in Babylon. This delegation of power is the first sign of the unraveling of the

central powers which is to take place two years later.

Two years following his ascension to Regent Antipater dies and his death sparks the

final unraveling of the empire. The people who were once suppressed by Alexander now see the

opportunity to rebel and fight to gain their freedom like Ptolemy had done. As a result of the

division of power, the government is no longer strong enough to suppress these rebellions and

the regions soon break away. Amongst this chaos the only person who has any legitimacy to gain

the throne and take control is assassinated. With his death the final blow is issued to the empire

and collapses.

The result of Antipater’s death the central government is too weak to hold the empire

together any longer. Once he dies the regions that were suppressed with the rule of Alexander

begin to revolt. His successors Polyperchon and Eumenes fight to keep the government enacted

but cannot find any support to so. The reason being is that the regions people do not want to be

ruled by any empire any longer. They remember how harsh the rule of Macedonia was and

49



M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C Pg 4

16

eventually push them out of Greece. The leader of the revolt Cassandar (Son of Antipater) ends

up taken control of Greece and pulling it away from the empire.52

In response Eumenes, tries to

create a military force to take back Greece but fails miserably. His men end up abandoning him

in the middle of the battle and join the other side. Eumenes is captured and then executed by

Cassandar as an example of what would happen if someone tried to take back Greece from

him.53

At the same time this Antigonus I was mounting a force reclaim Greece as part of

Alexander’s Empire.54

The five years that followed the death of Antipater saw powerful attempts of Antigonus I,

supported by Demetrius his son, to become sole ruler of the empire. These Attempts made

Ptolemy I, Cassandar and Lysimachus to unite against them. In 312 Demetrius is defeated by

Ptolemy at Gaza, and Seleucus, who had been cast out from Babylon by Antigonus I four years

previously is regains the city is reinstated as the leader.55

With this position retaken, Seleucus

also re-acquires all of Alexander’s old eastern territories. This then lays the foundation for the

Seleucid Kingdom. While this is going Olympias seeing the opportunity of the fighting brings

has Phillip III killed.56

She does this so as to secure sole authority of the remaining empire for

her Grandson Alexander IV.

In 311 the warring generals called a truce that would only last for a single year. It was

called off when Cassandar had Alexander IV killed in an attempt to master Greece and

Macedonia which are partially successful for himself. At the same time Antigonus and

Demetrius find it impossible to suppress Seleucus any longer. At the siege of Rhodes Demetrius

52

Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History, Pg 256 53

Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History, Pg256 54

Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History, Pg257 55

Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. Pg.8 56


17

fails to take the city and ends up not being able to suppress Seleucus any longer. Then in 306

B.C.E without claiming any particular territory Antigonus ends up naming himself king.

Following his example Ptolemy officially names himself king of Egypt in 305 B.C.E. Ptolemy is

followed by Seleucus in 304 B.C.E who names himself king of Babylonia and Mesopotamia.57

This then breaks the empire into four separate empires between them. This would have ended the

fighting but Antigonus had much broader imperial ambitions.

After Ptolemy and Seleucus name themselves king of their own territory it became clear

that Antigonus had imperial ambitions in mind. This makes Antigonus the key danger to the new

leaders of the territories. In response the king of the new dynasties unite against him. Ptolemy,

Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassandar create a force together to stop Antigonus from invading

there countries and reuniting the empire. Cassandar ends up losing Greece and Macedonia as a

result of these battles. In response to this Ptolemy, Seleucus and Lysimachus start attacking

Antigonus from all sides of his empire. This causes Antigonus to recall his forces from Greece to

defend himself against the invasion.58

By the time Antigonus calls back his forces it was too late.

Antigonus was obliged to recall forces from Greece, where his son Demetrius recently

had a sterile encounter with Cassandar in Thessaly. The final battle called ‘The Battle of Kings’

was fought between 75,000 men.59

The final battle took place in 301 B.C.E at Ipsus. When the

battle was over the forces of Antigonus and Demetrius were destroyed and Antigonus himself lay

dead on the battlefield.60

This outcome of the battle, by eliminating the only potential re-unifier,

57

57


58


59


60


18

meant the irrevocable dismemberment of the empire of Alexander, which was now divided into

four separate kingdoms: those of Lysimachus, Seleucus, Ptolemy and Cassandar.

The Death of an Empire As a Result of Poor Political Planning

Alexander the Great was Greece’s greatest king and general. With his abilities as a leader

he gained control of a vast territory. This territory stretched from Northern Africa all the way

east to Mesopotamia and eventually into India. Alexander’s political wisdom as an Emperor and

generosity as a general kept the territory unified. When Alexander ruled, he showed his newly

conquered territories a remarkable amount of leniency. After his death when his generals ruled

they did not focus on the territories. Instead what the Generals had in mind was seizing power for

them.

The biggest mistake Alexander made was the fact that he never made succession plan for

after his death. He had created government that relied too much on the power of the King. In

almost every city or territory he conquered he left the entire final decision making process up to

him. This was fine though as long as Alexander either was leading or chooses a successor with

his abilities as a leader. But due to Alexander’s un-expected death he has no time to choose

anyone who would lead his empire. This failure of not having a succession plan then leads to a

weak council being formed, and the death of the heirs to his throne. Unlike Alexander, the

council cannot command the forces it needs to keep it together. This allows for the generals then

to take control of territories for themselves.

As a result of not being able to form a Succession plan Alexander’s empire eventually

falls into several territories. The unraveling of the government first begins with Ptolemy taken

control of Egypt. This seizing of territory ends with Peridiccas and Craterus, two member of the

19

new council, dying in battle. This then leaves the empire in the hands of an Ageing Antipater. By

the time he takes control he is eighty years old and has to delegate his powers to other generals.

This then decentralizes the power even further and leads to the ultimate splitting into four

separate empires.

With the death of Antipater at the age of eighty years old and the powers spread out so

far, Alexander’s officers seize power for themselves. This leads to a 15 year war called ‘The War

of the successors’61

. At the end of the wars the heirs to his throne are killed leaving no hope of a

direct bloodline to bring it back together. The only person who had any interest of reunifying the

empire is killed in battle. The empire is split amongst the four remaining generals: Cassandar,

Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Seleucus. In the end though all this could have been avoided if

Alexander had the foresight to name a successor.

The fall of Alexander the Greats Empire was due to the fact that he had not chosen a

successor to his throne. At the time of Alexander death he acquired vast sums of territory that

stretched from Egypt to the western part of India. Without a succession plan in place the council

of Macedonia had no choice but to create a council that would rule in his absence. This council

though is too weak to really control any part of the empire as whole. As a result Alexander’s

officers are able to take control and divide the land for themselves. This division of land results

in the collapse of his empire. Alexander the Greats is the direct cause of the fall of his Empire,

because he did not create a succession plan for after his death.

61

61


20

Works Cited

Berrigan, Joseph. "Siege of Tyre and Gaza." Ancient Mesopotamia.

joseph_berrigan.tripod.com/ancientbabylon/id34.html (accessed May 1, 2010).

Bury, J B. A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great,. New York: New York, The

Modern Library [1937], 1939.

Cantor, Norman F.. Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth. 2005. Reprint, New

York: Harper Perennial, 2007.

Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. New York: Scribner

Paper Fiction, 1990.

Grant, Michael. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. New York: Scribner

Paper Fiction, 1990.

Green, Peter. Alexander the Great. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1991.

M., M.A., and D.Litt. Cary. A History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C.. 1932. Reprint,

Toronto: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1963.

Plutarch. Plutarch Lives, VII, Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar (Loeb Classical

Library). London: Loeb Classical Library, 1919.

Robinson, George Willis Botsford; Charles Alexander. Hellenic History, Revised Edition. New

York: Macmillan Company, 1939.

The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2004.

Documents

A lexander 2