A multi ethnic, multi religious empire where millions were living in harmony and prosperity with the highest culture and values completely destroyed by Alexander "The Great" and his successors.
What's so great about a guy who destroys such a perfect empire?
moron. The history of this empire is constant rebellions against the persians. Some of them lasting decades. The reason Alexander was able to easiky take the western half is because of this
The empire was still mostly together when Alexander died, and it was still "multi ethnic" and "multi religious" and most of the people there just kept on living in harmony and prosperity.
Gotta read all the way to the bottom of the wikipedia article, fat kids. Even if you get all tired and fussy halfway down.
Did you forget about the diadochi wars?
The diadochi wars were partly wars for keeps, partly for Alexander's generals to show that they mean business, partly to prove to the local elites they're part of them.
In some ways, this was the better choice because the regions the Persian Empire held wanted more power of governance, so the diadochi understood that this artificial structure – despite Alexander being central to it – couldn't last without delegating power to viceroys, kings.
In this respect, Alexander perhaps failed to behave like an emperor and instead behaved like a "I want to be part of you", which the diadochi later did for themselves.
I think Alexander didn't knew what to do, given that he tried every trick in the book: dress like them, eat like them, talk like them etc.
It didn't quite worked because even the regions themselves saw he was trying to woo them with allegiance, to the point (I forget) of somebody telling him "Dude, we know you've said the same thing to the others what you said to us now."
If he had lived, he most definitely would've started a war of conquest but pulling the trick of uniting various forces under Alexander's sole banner type of symbolism & enforcement of power. He died, so the diadochi had to play their parts of petty kings to maintain & reestablish stability overall, albeit without an emperor or king of kings.
This, also always fascinating to watch how the largest successor state in the Seleucids were unabashedly Macedonian, rejecting Persian customs and marginalizing it while still slinging its weight around while employing only colonist mercenaries in its army when it was far more cheaper and efficient to use the Persians and Babylonians. This led to its eventual downfall due to massive Macedonian manpower shortages but they still tried their hardest to make their new Macedonia work and who knows without a Rome it could had possibly survived because it ignored the east in favor of conquering small Greek city states and ending in conflict with Rome over said areas.
>without a Rome it could had possibly survived because it ignored the east in favor of conquering small Greek city states and ending in conflict with Rome over said areas.
By the time Roman armies arrived in the region they were already on the decline
>In 168 BC, a Roman Consul named Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a circular line in the sand around King Antiochus IV of the Seleucid Empire, then said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate" – implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without ...
In decline compared to the juggernaut of Rome, yes. But no to their neighbors, they were managing to launch massive campaigns against the Greek cities and Ptolemies simultaneously. It got to the point that the Seleucids actually defeated them Ptolemies and were sieging their way to Alexandria but was told by Rome that if they conquered Egypt, that Rome would invade. Rome was just that powerful
>most of the people there just kept on living in harmony and prosperity.
Lol no.
The empire got into nearly a hundred civil war.
I repeat, nearly a century of civil war.
From 322BC to 275BC.
My favorite part is when the Babylonians revolted twice so Xerxes just flooded their entire fricking city and genocides the entire original population then destroyed the monuments for good measure.
>perfect empire
>gets destroyed by one man over 8 battles in a single lifetime
>Perfect conqueror.
>Empire gets fragmented instantly after the second he dies.
no one ever claimed Alexander was perfect
in fact, retrospectively, many people claim he was in fact quite moronic except in battlefield tactics
>no one ever claimed Alexander was perfect
I am. He was a literal god on Earth.
Perfect conqueror doesn't mean perfect administrator
be happy that it existed and carry their spirit
>multi ethnic, multi religious empire where millions were living in harmony and prosperity
Roflmfao
Perfect thing can't be easily destroyed.
Meme map painting
In reality, the further away from persepolis the less influence they had in real life affairs
>An army from the east suddenly overruns a centuries old empire, spanning from Anatolia to Persia, with high religious toleration, multiple ethnic groups and high culture
Where else have I heard this...
This would unironically fix the entire middle east and west asia