All Alexander's Women
Page 14
Plutarch also mentions two different occasions on which Hefaistion quarrelled with Eumenes; the first time over the assignment of living quarters, the second involving a prize-giving. Alexander was angry with Hefaistion at first, but soon came to resent Eumenes. This, Plutarch explains, obliged Eumenes to deflect any suspicions that he rejoiced at Hefaistion’s death, by proposing special posthumous honours for him.
• 9 •
AFTER ALEXANDER
Arrian on the Successor Wars (Ta Meta Alexandrou, “The events after Alexander”), as abridged by Photius; translation by J.H. Freese:
“Arrian also wrote an account of what took place after Alexander’s death, in ten books. He describes the sedition in the army, the proclamation of Arridaios, the son of Alexander’s father Filippos, by a Thracian woman named Filinna, on condition that Roxane’s child, when born, if it were a son, should share the throne with him. Arridaios was then again proclaimed as joint king under the name of Filippos. <…>
Perdikkas became the object of general suspicion and himself suspected everybody. Nevertheless, he made appointments to the governorships of the different provinces, as if Arridaios had ordered him. Meanwhile, Roxane bore a son, who was immediately acclaimed king by the soldiers.
After the death of Alexander there were numerous disturbances. Antipater carried on a war against the Athenians and the rest of the Greeks commanded by Leosthenes. <…> Krateros, by the assistance he rendered to Antipater against the Greeks, chiefly contributed to their defeat, after which they unhesitatingly obeyed Krateros and Antipater. This is the contents of the first five books.
The sixth book relates how <…> Perdikkas, intriguing against Antigonos, called him to judgment, but Antigonos, aware of the plot, refused to appear. This led to enmity between them. <...>
Soon afterwards, Cynnane was put to death by Perdikkas. This Cynnane was a daughter of Filippos the father of Alexander, her mother being Audata Eurydike. Cynnane brought her daughter Adea to Asia and offered her hand to Arridaios. The marriage subsequently took place, with the approval of Perdikkas, to appease the increasing indignation of the soldiery, which had been aroused by the death of Cynnane.
Antigonos, in the meantime, took refuge with Antipater and Krateros in Makedon and informed them of the intrigues of Perdikkas against him, declaring that they were directed against all alike. He also described the death of Cynnane in such exaggerated terms that he persuaded them to make war on Perdikkas. <...>
The body of Alexander was taken from Babylon by way of Damascus, contrary to the wish of Perdikkas, to Ptolemy in Egypt. <…> Perdikkas, setting out from Damascus to make war first upon Ptolemy, reached Egypt with the co-kings and a large force. Notwithstanding the opposition of his troops, he decided to carry on the war. He was twice defeated, and, having treated those who were inclined to go over to Ptolemy with great severity, and in other respects behaved in camp more arrogantly than became a general, he was slain by his own cavalry during an engagement.
At a full council of war, Peithon and Arridaios having been appointed commanders-in-chief of all the forces for the time being, about fifty of the supporters of Eumenes and Alketas were condemned, chiefly because Krateros had met his death. <…>
Antipater made his own son Kassander chiliarch of the cavalry, while Antigonos received command of the forces which had formerly been under Perdikkas, <…> and, at his own request, the task of finishing the war against Eumenes. Antipater, having secured the approval of what he had done, returned home. With this the ninth book concludes.
The tenth book relates how Eumenes, having heard what had befallen Perdikkas, made all preparations for war; and <…> how Eumenes nearly came to blows with Antipater on his arrival at Sardès. But Kleopatra, Alexander’s sister, to prevent the Makedonian people accusing her of being the cause of the war, persuaded Eumenes to leave Sardès.
Notwithstanding, Antipater reviled her for her friendship with Eumenes and Perdikkas. She defended herself more vigorously than a woman could have been expected to do, brought countercharges against him, and in the end they parted amicably. <…>
Antipater, not yet daring to engage Eumenes, <…> appointed Antigonos to the command of the forces which had crossed over with him to Asia: 8500 Makedonian infantry, and the same number of foreign cavalry, together with half the elephants (that is, seventy) to assist him in ending the war against Eumenes.
Antipater wanted to return to Makedon with the co-kings and the rest of his forces, but the army again mutinied and demanded their pay. Having deceived the soldiers, Antipater crossed the Hellespont by night, with the co-kings, to Lysimachos. On the following day the soldiers also crossed, and for the moment made no further demand for their pay. With this the tenth book ends.”
• 10 •
THE LIBER DE MORTE PROPAGANDA
All historians agree that the various Alexander Romances were rewritten time and again to suit the propaganda themes of different patrons. But only in 1895 Professor Ausfeld noted that the final part of the Romance, a chapter titled Liber de Morte explaining Alexander’s death and his last will, differs in too many stylistic details from the rest of the book. Also it had been preserved as a freestanding text in other ancient chronicles. So it must have been written by other authors and for other purposes. The experts have haggled over who and why for years, but now the consensus says that its author is Ptolemy, and the date around 309 BC.
Alexander’s sons by Roxane and Barsine have been murdered: no direct heir to the throne can be produced any more. Ptolemy considers his moment has come. Anonymously, he publishes a fake Will of Alexander, with such a detailed account of Alexander’s death that it could only come from an eyewitness, to make the document more believable.
This account is a scathing condemnation for all Alexander’s generals who are now Ptolemy’s rivals. Never before have they been so publicly exposed as culprits in Alexander’s death, or as criminal violators of Alexander’s last will; or both.
Kassander and his father Antipater are shown to have organized the poisoning of the king. Everybody had already heard stories about the poisoning of Alexander. They started circulating immediately after his death. (In Athens, the politician Hypereides made the mistake of officially proposing honours to Kassander’s brother Iollas for having administered the poison to Alexander. As soon as Alexander’s governors regained control, they first had Hypereides’ tongue cut off, and then killed him.)
But now, this document names all the participants in the conspiracy — all of them, Ptolemy’s enemies. And it then goes on to detail how they have refused to obey Alexander’s last wishes.
Kassander, the worst of them all, has killed Roxane and her son, whom Alexander in this will appoints as his successor. The document makes Alexander say Perdikkas should marry Roxane, which he did not; so he too was guilty. Other generals: Krateros, Lysimachos, Antigonos and Seleukos, or the secretary-turned-general Eumenes, also have disobeyed various parts of the will. So they all (living or dead: by this time Perdikkas, Krateros and Eumenes have been killed already) are condemned.
Only Ptolemy has legitimacy. He has done all Alexander is said to have ordered, including the transport of his body to Egypt and the establishment of a priesthood to pay him divine honours. All, but for one detail: a state marriage.
The Liber de Morte makes a dying Alexander distribute the royal princesses of Makedon: his half-sisters Cynnane and Thessalonike, and his full sister Kleopatra. Krateros has to marry Cynnane, Lysimachos is to take Thessalonike. And Kleopatra is given to Ptolemy!
His rivals are guilty of not even trying. Krateros has ignored Cynnane, and permitted Antipater to keep her prisoner until she fled to Asia Minor, where she was murdered by Perdikkas. Princess Thessalonike has also been married against Alexander’s purported wish: Kassander took her after proclaiming himself king in 316. (Antigonos immediately denounced him, saying he had forced Thessalonike.)
So this document means to show that Ptolemy is the only one who tries to
comply with Alexander’s dying wish: he asks Kleopatra to marry him. The so-called Will has been forged and circulated in 309 BC, as a propaganda pre-run for the political and military efforts Ptolemy will launch later that year. That is when he sends his formal marriage proposal to Kleopatra.
Evidently, he wants to legitimise a political marriage to Kleopatra, and a war to reunite the whole empire again under their joint rule, through the ‘divine blessing’ of Alexander. A bit late, of course. Alexander’s purported Will is dated in 323, so 14 years have passed. Ptolemy must think he can argue that his rivals had sabotaged him by illegally imprisoning Kleopatra.
By 308, Ptolemy has occupied the whole Eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean, and Antigonos is far away in Babylon attacking Seleukos. Now Ptolemy personally leads an attack on Lykia in Asia Minor. Sardès is not too distant: if he can link up with Kleopatra, he will trump all his rivals. She has agreed to his scheme and tries to flee from Sardès to join him.
But Antigonos has left specific orders for this case. Kleopatra is dragged back to the palace in Sardès, and killed there in secret. Kleopatra’s and Ptolemy’s final attempt to conquer the whole of Alexander’s empire has failed. On the other hand, Antigonos’ supremacy does not last long either. Lysimachos and Seleukos –with some help from Ptolemy– destroy him at the battle of Ipsos in 301 BC.
Later, the allies slide into mutual propaganda warfare. Lysimachos, who owes his fame and riches to the long-past fact of having been Alexander’s somatofylax (bodyguard), gets furious when his enemies dub him gazofylax (treasurer: a profession for eunuchs). He hits back by calling Seleukos elefantarchès (‘elephant boss’). This is meant to rub in the disgrace that Seleukos has sold out Alexander’s Indian conquests to king Chandragupta for 500 war elephants. At their final battle, near Sardès in 281 BC, Lysimachos is killed.
So in the end, of all Alexander’s marshals, only Seleukos and Ptolemy have had sufficient staying power to leave their sons a kingdom.
• 11 •
END OF THE EMPIRE
As the Successor Wars peter out from a chaotic all-against-all to a relatively stable situation, the empire splits into four Hellenic kingdoms (plus Parthia). Their chronology can be summarised as follows:
(1) Ptolemies
323–30 BC
(2) Antigonids
323–168 BC
(3) Seleukids
312–66 BC
(4) Attalids
282–133 BC
1) The Ptolomies governed Egypt from Alexandria, which they made into the grandest city of the Ancient world, inviting over a hundred thousand Hellenes. They came from the Greek cities in Asia Minor, Greece, southern Italy and Sicily, willingly abandoning their old republican city-states to live and work under a powerful but benevolent monarch.
When Ptolemy I Soter (“the Saviour”) died in 283 BC, his realm stretched from the Nile Cataracts at modern-day Assuan, to the mountains of Lebanon. It included more than ten million subjects, and produced an annual tax income of about 15,000 talents. Besides generous patronage for the arts at Alexandria’s great Library and Mouseion, a high percentage of this revenue went to the military. The Ptolemies spent fortunes on a mercenary army and a technically very advanced navy – which however often proved incapable of assuring the dreamed triumphs.
2) Antigonos One-Eye with his son Demetrios won, and then lost, a vast empire centered on Asia Minor and Mesopotamia. Around 316 BC, this realm yielded him a revenue of some 11,000 talents per year. Later his financial possibilities became much more limited, as he went on losing territories.
Only his grandson, Antigonos Gonatas, obtained a stable dominion: Makedon itself, which he took from Kassander’s successor. This allowed his dynasty to control central and northern Greece, plus most of the Aegean islands. With a small population –only a few million–, this kingdom, thanks to the strong military tradition of Makedon, still could measure up to the Ptolemies and the Seleukids.
3) Seleukos initially lost Babylon to Antigonos and had to take refuge with Ptolemy. Then, after helping him to beat off Antigonos at the battle of Gaza in 312 BC, Seleukos made a daring dash with few troops across the Western Desert to take back ‘his’ city. Soon he controlled all Mesopotamia and western Persia. But in the east he could not prevent Chandragupta from taking over the Indian dominions.
After the battle of Ipsos in 301 BC, he added Syria and the southern part of Asia Minor to his holdings. Eying Greece, Seleukos moved the centre of his kingdom from Mesopotamia to the Syrian coast. His new capital of Antioch was destined to become, like Alexandria, one of the great cities of the Ancient world for nearly a millennium.
At his death (by murder) in 280 BC, his realm stretched from the Iranian deserts to the Hellespont. It comprised over fifty million subjects and could field an army of 80,000 men. Its tax revenue –no figures available as yet– was high but, because of the vast extension of the territory, its power could never be concentrated on one single campaign. And so in 247 BC the Seleukids lost Parthia. It became an independent eastern empire, heir to Achaemenid traditions, and –later–capable of fighting off Roman expansion towards Central Asia.
4) After 280 BC the Attalids in Pergamon made themselves independent from the Seleukid realm, but had to fight off their former overlords continually. For the first 70 years their saviour-allies were the Ptolemies; then, after 200 BC, they came to depend on the Romans. The last of the Attalid kings willed his dominion to Rome in 133 BC.
The Successor Wars are over. The tattered and divided remains of Alexander’s empire settle down for long centuries of cultural radiance, but short years of political independence. In the distance, the boots of the Roman legions are already heard thumping.
Makedon, attacked in 197, falls in 168 BC. The Seleukids are finished off by Pompeius in 66 BC, and in 47 BC Julius Caesar writes the final act. He conquers Egypt – but is conquered by Cleopatra VII. However, Rome does not tolerate this oriental witch queen: Julius is assassinated in 44 BC, and Cleopatra driven to suicide in 30 BC. Under Augustus a new, and very different, empire arises.
Julius Caesar’s reverence for the Makedonian world-conqueror was legendary, and ensured that Alexander’s glory would never be forgotten. At the frustratingly slow beginning of his own career, as a mere provincial officer in Spain, Caesar was seen in Cádiz –a Fenician colony– weeping before a statue of Alexander, envious of his youthful success. And when he had equalled his idol, finally adding Alexandria and the whole of Egypt’s riches to his power base, Caesar accompanied Cleopatra in a respectfully silent pilgrimage to the Alexander Tomb.
Augustus was more talkative when he came to pay homage to Alexander. He voiced the practical opinion that Alexander, instead of his endless victorious marches, should have taken some time to organize his empire better.
But that criticism did not diminish his admiration: for the greater part of his reign, Augustus used a signet ring with Alexander’s image engraved on it, to seal his decrees. After all, his own good fortune derived from the untimely death of this conqueror. If Alexander the Great had lived to endow his vast dominions with a solid state apparatus, the Roman Empire would never have come to exist.
In his final year, Alexander was already planning a westward campaign. He controlled the Fenicians, and with them the seas. Soon, their former colony Carthago would have lost its independent power. Rome would then have been contained in Italy.
However, after Alexander’s death, Perdikkas immediately convened the assembly of Makedonian voting soldiers. There, in order to limit the broad powers given to his rival Krateros, he had Alexander’s so-called Final Plans repealed. This included the Arabian Expedition, that is, his strategy for the military and commercial domination of the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean ánd the Mediterranean. Professor Bosworth underscores in his Legacy of Alexander:
“The vast project of naval construction, already underway in Kilikia, Fenicia and Cyprus, was cancelled, as was the proposed campaign against Carthago. Krateros had at his
disposal arguably the most united force, over 10,000 Makedonian veterans, and controlled Kilikia and its treasures; it was the centre of the great military build-up which Alexander had commissioned in his last year.
The treasury of Cyinda was the principal receptacle of money, and vast sums were lodged there. As late as 315 BC, after six years of war in which Kilikia figured prominently, Antigonos One-Eye still was able to draw 10,000 talents from Cyinda alone. Much more would have been there for the taking in 323 BC.”
In 324 BC Alexander had begun to construct an enormous naval basin in Babylonia, holding over 1,000 ships. Via the Red Sea–Nile canal they could reach the Mediterranean, too. There, Krateros had written orders from Alexander, as Diodoros states, to build 1,000 warships larger than triremes in Kilikia, Cyprus, and Fenicia, for a campaign against Carthago.
If Krateros had conquered Carthago –a foregone conclusion–, history would have taken a different course. Rome, locked in between a strong terrestrial army in Makedon, and the combined navies of Alexander’s empire plus its vassals from Carthago, would have remained a simple local player in Italy.
But Krateros, with the empire’s unity crumbling at his back in Babylon, and with a civil war on his hands in Greece and Asia Minor, never got to implement Alexander’s western campaign. Worse, he was killed at a minor battle in Cappadocia in 321 BC.
Alexander’s realm would never find back its reunited military power. And so Carthago could continue to build up its naval dominance in the Mediterranean – until it clashed with Rome, setting off the Punic Wars that opened the way to the Roman Empire, and Augustus.
CLEOPATRA VII, QUEEN AND PHARAOH
The academic consensus is that Cleopatra VII preferred to kill herself, rather than permitting a victorious Augustus to exhibit her on the streets of Rome, loaded with chains and abused by the gloating spectators of his triumph over Egypt. But there is more to it than this consideration of personal pride.