when we compare alexander's campaigns with period after his campaigns (100 years of mediteranean history after his death ,from lusitania to babylon) i see something weird:
Alexander his generals and his army conquer turkey,syria,judea,egypt and iraq (modern day) in about 3 years more or less against biggest empire in the world,after previously fighting in the balkans and burning poets in the south
then we compare that to antigonid macedonia or ptolemaic egypt/seleukid asia, they are sturggling to keep what they have. Pyrus too, struggles to conquer 300km2 and 20 cities/towns for years. rome too is very slowly expanding throughout history although i can understand that because they expand when they see fit and only when 'others are threatening them',working more as a nation and not a dynasty, at least on the surface
more examples would be 1st and 2nd punic wars ,those are some damn long conflicts and bloody
i am aware that political situation might influence how the war is fought and how long , but still it puzzels me to see such contrast. is alexander just that good, or there is some other explanation?