Alexander the IV is still alive at game start

[Duarte]

the often forgoten sun of alexander the great, alexander the IV is still live at the start of the game,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_IV_of_Macedon

Could this mean that the argead dynasty still has a chnace at survival, and possibly, a true restoration of the argead empire?
and above all will he be playable?

 

[Spartanlemur]

Doesn't the game start in 304 BC, five years after his death?

 

[Dsingis]

I think you're a bit confused by the BCE time. I know it's counter intuitive, but 309 BCE was actually before 304 BCE.
So at the start of the game he is already dead for about 5 years.

 

[Markus Marius]

I think you're a bit confused by the BCE time. I know it's counter intuitive, but 309 BCE was actually before 304 BCE.
So at the start of the game he is already dead for about 5 years.

Shame, would have been nice. Possible mod idea

 

[Duarte]

I think you're a bit confused by the BCE time. I know it's counter intuitive, but 309 BCE was actually before 304 BCE.
So at the start of the game he is already dead for about 5 years.

Doesn't the game start in 304 BC, five years after his death?

I feel like an Idiot, sorry for the confusion.

 

[cristofolmc]

If he were alive he's empire would hold together, which the game doesn't show, so I don't think he's alive.

 

[Jia Xu]

While we're on the subject, it's a shame that the game doesn't start 5 or 10 years earlier, to give us a chance to save Alexander IV and his dynasty.

 

[cristofolmc]

While we're on the subject, it's a shame that the game doesn't start 5 or 10 years earlier, to give us a chance to save Alexander IV and his dynasty.

I suppose its the same as Victoria II, a few years earlier might break the game balance by adding a massive super empire (like Spanish southamerica in Victoria) that stretches all the way from greece to india...

 

[Jia Xu]

I suppose its the same as Victoria II, a few years earlier might break the game balance by adding a massive super empire (like Spanish southamerica in Victoria) that stretches all the way from greece to india...

It really wouldn't change much of anything, in this case. Alexander IV was a child king who was usurped by his regent, Cassander. As Cassander was already in control of the kingdom, the only thing that would be altered is the ability to change Alexander's fate.

 

[Uhtred_CK2]

It really wouldn't change much of anything, in this case. Alexander IV was a child king who was usurped by his regent, Cassander. As Cassander was already in control of the kingdom, the only thing that would be altered is the ability to change Alexander's fate.

So much uninformed history. . . .

Cassander may have been regent and killed but he didn't usurp Alexander's kingdom. No one did. Cassander just had a power base in Macedon. But that's not the same. The way to deal with Hellenistic rulers and the Diadochi is always refer to their territory by their name. That way it doesn't lead to misinformation like this.

 

[Jia Xu]

So much uninformed history. . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300s_BC_(decade)

Here you go. If you want to point out some dramatic historical event during this decade that would change the balance of the entire game, please do so. Thanks.

Selucids are the only one and you could cover that with some sort of scripted rise to power, similar to William the Conquer in CK2.

 

[Uhtred_CK2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300s_BC_(decade)

Here you go. If you want to point out some dramatic historical event during this decade that would change the balance of the entire game, please do so. Thanks.

If you re-read my comment you'll realise I am trying to clear up the way you answer it. Yes Alexander IV was killed by Cassander just like Philip III was bumped off too. What I was trying to get at was the way you wrote your comment was Cassander took over everything. Which he did not.

 

[Jia Xu]

If you re-read my comment you'll realise I am trying to clear up the way you answer it. Yes Alexander IV was killed by Cassander just like Philip III was bumped off too. What I was trying to get at was the way you wrote your comment was Cassander took over everything. Which he did not.

Killing the king so you can become the king, in his place, is a usurpation. Like, that could be the text book example of usurping. I don't know why you bothered to edit that into your last post.

 

[Uhtred_CK2]

Killing the king so you can become the king, in his place, is a usurpation. Like, that could be the text book example of usurping. I don't know why you bothered to edit that into your last post.

What I meant by it was the while complexities of the period 323-301 are a lot more than just usurpation as you suggest. The death of Alexander IV may have opened the way for new kingdoms but the Dynasts and their power base were always there and thus Cassander was not looking to usurp. In fact Cassander was much more looking to retain the influence in Europe that his father had. The war with Antigonus is due to the very real.possibilty he would have united the empire under an Antigonid dynasty. The Argeads mat have survived until 310 but the dynasty fell in 323.