Alexander’s issue was that he died young and almost inexplicably, without a stable line of succession. In another life he may well have simply chopped the failing Achaemenids out for the Argeads, and the Persian Empire would have trundled on without too much change.
As far as Macedonian Kings go, Alexander was quite pleasant, competent and fair.
Edit: Ironically, if he’d had his way, his rule may have ultimately brought Greece firmly into the Persian sphere of influence.
Do not be sad,Rule 34/or maybe 37/ still worked when i last time checked !
He was - but his methods of fighting should kill him in first battle.And you are right,his Macedonian Kingdom would become persian one,if he lived long enough.
Yes, Alexander was (on average) a fairly noble figure, albeit with considerable temper issues. For his time and place, he definitely qualified as a virtuous ruler. Most within his empire regarded him as a liberator, which is always telling. The main issue is that he was a batshit crazy risk-taker who not only led from the front, but was typically "the first across the wall".
If he'd lived, I think you can just look at Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleukid Persia for an indication of what to reasonably expect. Dial up the Hellenisation, though. He was literally breeding a mixed-ethnicity "new generation" of warrior-aristocrats with Macedonian fathers and Persian mothers, who would inherit the administration of the empire. It would very much be a mixed, syncretised culture.
But ultimately, a Hellenistic monarchy writ large. Very large. It would have to be decentralist and laissez-faire by default, but the backbone of Imperial governance would be the Imperial cities (the Alexandrias) connected by the extensive network of improved and newly-built roadways that Alexander was putting in place. His military elite, of mixed heritage and identifying as "imperial citizens" more than any specific
ethnos, would be able to keep things secure and running.
Hilariously, with Alexander being regarded as a divine ruler (a son of the highest god), the kind of thing we're describing here starts to sound kind of like the Imperium of Man in 40K... initially as it was in its heyday, and (going by the example of the OTL Hellenistic realms) subsequently degenerating into a more calcified and hollowed-out iteration of itself. (Presumably having also lost a lot of land along the various frontiers in the process.)
The obvious model for comparison would be the Maurya monarchy in India, which was founded around the same time, and whose originator -- Chandragupta -- was essentially the Alexander of India. Considering Alexander's place in the macro-historical model, this also answers the what-if of the "Napoleon victory scenario", because that one occupied that same place in history as well. It's an empire that remakes its world-system, but which is established too early to be able to properly "collapse" into a true universal state. We may therefore conclude that the most plausible long-term outcome of Alexander's triumph would be the permanent derailment of both Classical and Persian history. (Presumably Carthaginian history as well, since his plan was to go West and deal with them, if he'd lived.)
We'd be living in a very different world, if Alexander had been able to realise his epic ambitions.