Alexanders Heirs
Page 4
of Cardia, who was not only a contemporary historian of the period, but also an
occasional participant in the events being described, and a confidant of three of the major players in this transitional period: Eumenes, from the historian’s native city, Cardia in the Chersonese, and likely a relation (Hornblower 1981: 8; Billows 1990: 390; Anson 2004: 5 and n. 29); Antigonus Monophthalmus (One-eyed); and
the latter’s son Demetrius Poliorcetes (City-sacker), concluding his long career
serving the son of Demetrius, Antigonus Gonatas, the founder of the Antigonid
dynasty of kings who would rule Macedonia continuously from 276 (Chambers
1954: 386, 392) to the end of the dynasty in 168. Consequently, if the basis for most of the surviving accounts can be traced, through whatever tortuous path of trans-mission, back to Hieronymus, then some confidence can be assumed at least in
the general outline of the surviving histories. But, with the dearth of surviving evidence, this desire for confidence in Diodorus’ narrative may, indeed, foster a predilection among historians to accept Hieronymus as the ultimate source. There
were other histories written at the time or shortly thereafter by other authors
which also have not survived, but which may have descended to our surviving
works. All of these exist only as suppositions; others as mere notices, and some in fragments. Like Hieronymus’ history itself, the work called variously the Histories, Macedonica, or the Hellenica of Duris of Samos, also survives in fragments. While not a direct participant in the events, Duris did write an account of this period, and is seen by some modern historians as a major source for the surviving
Diadochan histories, such as Diodorus’ Library, that have survived (Landucci Gattinoni 1997: 9–28, 194–203).
Introduction
9
Diodorus for the first twenty years of the Successor period presents a fairly
detailed narrative. Our other surviving narrative account of the period comes
from another Roman survival, The Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, composed by Marcus Junianus (or Junianius) Justinus, or simply and conventional y, Justin. Given that Diodorus’ history only exists in fragments after 301, Justin’s far more abbreviated account is the only surviving narrative for the entire period covered in this book. Trogus’ work is most often dated to the period of the early Roman Empire; Justin’s has been variously dated from the reign of
Antoninus Pius in the second century ad to as late as that of Theodosius I in
the fourth (Yardley and Develin 1994: 4). Little is known of Trogus, this despite the fact that he was included in the so-called canon of Latin historians, which included with Trogus, Sal ust, Livy, and Tacitus (Yardley and Develin 1994: 3). In addition to Justin’s epitome, brief undated “Prologues” (summaries) of Trogus’ history also survive. While the history centered on the age ushered in by Philip and Alexander, it, through its digressions on various topics associated with the peoples of the
lands that made up the Hellenistic world, apparently took on certain aspects of a universal history, and Justin refers to it as such: “encompassing the annals of every period, king, nation and people” (Preface 2). Justin’s work, while most often termed an epitome, is not a simple condensation or abbreviation of Trogus’ history. Justin excerpted that material he found “pleasurable” and excised that which did not
serve a moral purpose (Preface 4). Justin’s abbreviated work is far more truncated than that of Diodorus, and often more problematic.
Two additional Roman historians provide critical material for the earliest years: Quintus Curtius Rufus, who, in his History of Alexander the Great of Macedon, continued his narrative past the Conqueror’s death to the emergence of Alexander’s half-brother, Arrhidaeus, as King Philip III; and Flavius Arrianus (Arrian) of
Nicomedia’s Events After Alexander, a detailed history in ten books, covering events from 323 to 320, although now lost, fragments, a late summary, and a synopsis of
another author’s work based on Arrian’s original survive.1 These works supplement our knowledge mostly of events in the years from 323 to 319. In addition to
Diodorus’ and Justin’s histories and Arrian’s fragments, there also survive a number of biographies dating also from the Roman era, but presenting the lives of important individuals from the age of the Diadochi. These include the biographies of Eumenes and Phocion by Cornelius Nepos, a Roman writer of the first century bc, and those of the early second-century ad author, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, or simply
Plutarch, including, his Lives of Demosthenes, Eumenes, Phocion, Demetrius, and Pyrrhus. In particular, Plutarch’s biographies of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Pyrrhus become our chief sources for the latter part of this history of the Diadochi.
These histories and biographies, along with a sizable number of inscriptions
from widely dispersed locations, but especial y from the city-state of Athens, dated to or referencing events in this period, add short and often eclectic pieces of
information to our knowledge. There also survive a brief account of the history
of the Seleucid Empire prior to its confrontation with Rome by the Roman-era
historian, Appian of Alexandria, a number of “stratagems” associated with the
10
Alexander’s Heirs
Successors, reported by the second-century ad Macedonian writer, Polyaenus, occa-
sional references in two geographer-travelers from the Roman era, the first-century ad Strabo, and the second-century ad Pausanias, to events in this period, tenth-century brief encyclopedia entries (the Suda), fragments from a thirteenth
(?)-century codex known as the Heidelberg Epitome,2 fragmentary cuneiform tablets from Babylonia, and bits and pieces of lost historians, quoted in other sources.
While these other sources provide additional material, and often critical
information, Diodorus’ narrative is by far the most complete down to shortly
before the Battle of Ipsus in 301. Especial y after the loss of Diodorus, but also even with him, as a colleague has written, much of the activity of a modern-day
historian of the ancient world in general, and of this period in particular, is
attempting to glean every possible “shred of source evidence for a matter they are dealing with … to toss one more gram of evidence onto the scales in promoting a
tricky solution to a problem” (Wheatley 2013).
The story that follows is one of conflict and greed. Tradition and authority fell by the wayside (Heckel 2002: 87). No advantage would or could be avoided, no alliance was destined to last, and all quests for supremacy were doomed to failure. Out of it all did emerge a new world, in which stable governments came into existence and
different cultures did interact, although clearly not as ful y as once thought. But Greek colonists, mostly men, and these mostly soldiers, did intermarry with native women; Hellenic, Asian, and Egyptian elites did interact on a regular and important basis. Commerce produced relationships, if only at the level of business, techno-logical innovation knew no ethnic boundaries and spread along the byways of an
interconnected Hellenistic world, and the different intelligentsias shared philosophies and religious ideas. While Alexander created the stage upon which his
Successors and their heirs performed, the play itself was written by those who
came after the Conqueror’s death. This work is an account of the first transitional generation, the Diadochi.
Notes
1 The epitome is by Photius, a ninth-century author, whose work is variously called Bibliotheca or Myrobiblion, which records 279 summaries of various works including that of Arrian. The three fragments of the original Events After Alexander are the
“Vatican Palimpsest,” which contains two brief extracts from Arrian’s Book 7; a papyrus fragment, PSI 12.1284, and the Gothenburg Palimpsest (see Dreyer 2007: 251–5, f
or a new edition and translation), which contains excerpts from Book 10. Photius also
summarized the work of Dexippus (ca. 210–273), History of the Events after Alexander the Great’s Death, which in turn was heavily based on Arrian’s Events After Alexander.
Photius’ summary of Dexippus only includes events derived from Arrian’s Book 1 of the Successors, and references to Dexippus’ summarized work will be designated as Succ. 1b; Photius’ summary of Arrian’s original is designated here as Succ. 1a for that material summarized from Book 1 and as Succ., without a letter designation, for subsequent references to Arrian’s original.
2 For a recent edition of the text, with commentary and translation, see Wheatley 2013.
2
The Death of a Conqueror
When Alexander the Great died on June 11, 323 (Depuydt 1997), he left a world
turned upside down. The Persian Empire, whose unsuccessful invasion of the
Greek peninsula had brought on the Greek Classical Age, and whose influence,
beginning towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, had helped keep the Greek
world in turmoil for decades, was gone. In its place was an empire which stretched from Macedonia to the Indus, created by a Greek army predominantly of Macedonians. The Greek world now had witnessed two of the most mercurial personalities
in her long history. A father and son had changed the Western world for all time.
The father, Philip II, had turned the backward, divided, and long-suffering land
of Macedonia into a unified nation and the dominant state in the Greek world.
The son, Alexander III, “the Great,” brought virtual y the entire Near East into the Hellenic realm with his conquest of the once seemingly omnipotent Persian
Empire. The father had died at the hands of an assassin and the seemingly invin-
cible son had died at not quite 33 years of age, and although the cause of his death has been much speculated upon, it remains unknown, although the most likely
explanation is that Alexander died from complications of malaria. However, soon
after his death tales of conspiracy and poison were promulgated (Diod. 17.117.5–
118.2; Curt. 10.10.14–19). The most complete account of a poison plot is found in the Liber de Morte, a propagandistic pamphlet likely originating in the struggles associated with the Second War of the Diadochi (see Heckel 1988). While such
stories are interesting, they are not convincing. Alexander in his ten-year expedition had received numerous wounds: a head wound on the Granicus (Arr. Anab.
1.15.7–8; Diod. 17.20.6; Plut. Mor. 327A), one in the thigh at Issus (Arr. Anab. 2.12.1; Curt. 3.12.2; Plut. Mor. 327A), wounds in the shoulder and leg at Gaza (Arr. Anab.
2.27.2; Curt. 4.6.17, 23; Plut. Mor. 327A) and in the head and neck in Bactria (Arr.
Anab. 4.3.3; Curt. 7.6.22), and a pierced lung in India (Arr. Anab. 6.10.1; Curt.
9.5.9–10). He likely contracted malaria in Cilicia and again in Babylon on his
return from India (Engels 1978: 224–8; Borza 1987: 36–8). West Nile disease
has also been suggested (Marr and Calisher 2003). Add to these traumas and
possible diseases the heavy drinking associated with Macedonian symposia
Alexander’s Heirs: The Age of the Successors, First Edition. Edward M. Anson.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
12
Alexander’s Heirs
(Carney 2007: 143–4; Sawada 2010: 393) and the Conqueror’s death from natural
causes appears as the most likely possibility. As the oft-repeated phrase states,
“Live hard, die young.”
At the time of Alexander’s death, he and his army were in Babylon, the capital of his new Kingdom of Asia (Str. 15.3.9–10). This alone would have made the process
of choosing a successor unique in Macedonian history, the selection of a king away from the homeland, but then neither Alexander nor his army had seen Macedonia
in years. To complicate matters Alexander had not provided for a successor and
the once replete Argead clan, which had held the throne for over 300 years,
had dwindled down to three potential heirs. When Alexander died he left but one
son, the 3- or 4-year-old Heracles,1 the result of an informal liaison with Barsine, the former wife of Memnon of Rhodes, a Greek mercenary commander in Persian
employ, and the daughter of Artabazus, advisor to Darius and Alexander’s one-
time satrap of Bactria. Barsine had been captured in Damascus by Parmenion
and subsequently had become intimate with Alexander (Curt. 3.13.14; Plut. Alex.
21.7; Just. 11.10.2), with Heracles being the result (Curt. 10.6.11; Diod. 20.20.1).
Additional y, there was Alexander’s half-brother Arrhidaeus, whose competence
to rule was seriously questioned because of some mental incapacity,2 and the
possibility of a legitimate son, since Roxane, his Bactrian or Sogdian wife, was
pregnant (Curt. 10.6.9; Just. 13.2.5; Arr. Succ. 1a.8). Alexander also had two additional wives, Stateira (Heckel 2006: 256), a daughter of Darius III, the Persian king and Alexander’s royal opponent, and Parysatis (Heckel 2006: 192), the
daughter of Artaxerxes III Ochus, the Persian monarch from 425 to 338, but
neither of these produced a possible heir. Stateira was murdered shortly after
Alexander’s death by Roxane, and Parysatis simply drops out of the narrative;
whether she was also murdered, died a natural death, or disappeared into obscu-
rity is unknown. What is clear is that at the time of Alexander’s death there was no capable Argead ready to take his place.
But, then, as noted in the Introduction, “Alexander was, essential y, not inter-
ested in a future without himself” (Badian 1964a: 203). Moreover, not having a
clear successor was not an unusual circumstance in Macedonian history. Disputed
successions and civil wars had often followed a king’s death. However, this particular succession crisis possessed a number of features not seen in the earlier struggles.
While there was no regular constitutional process to choose a new king, certain
elements were common. The new king would be a blood member of the royal
family. But beyond this basic requirement there was little else. The Macedonian
kings were by tradition descended from the Argive Temenus, thus the family was
often referred to as Temenid (Hdts. 8.137–9, Thuc. 2.99.3). The ruling family
was also called Argead, a term that apparently derives from a tribal name, “Argeas, the son of Macedon” (Stephanus of Byzantium, s.v. Argeou), but which also came to be associated with their claimed Argive origin. In Macedonia, the king served
as the intermediary between the gods and the people (Anson 1985: 304–7; Borza
1990: 238). There was no professional priesthood; the monarch made the sacrifices and obtained the favor of the gods,3 and presided over the sacred festivals.4
The Death of a Conqueror
13
This religious aura carried over into the ceremonies performed for a dead king.
On the death of a monarch a lustration was carried out (Just. 13.4.7; cf. Curt.
10.9.11–12), and funeral games and sacrifices were performed.5 The body would
then be formal y laid to rest in the royal tombs near the Macedonian city of Aegae (Borza 1990: 167, 256–60). This sacral nature of the monarchy likely accounts for the success of the Argeads in monopolizing the kingship over the centuries.
In the past, there had been a surfeit of possible candidates for the throne, which had given rise to numerous competitions for rule. Now, however, as the result of
both Alexander’s and his father Philip’s success in eliminating possible rivals
for the throne, there were only
three potential candidates left. Also, while not a constitutional requirement but the result of circumstances, most often a son
followed a father as king. To take the example of Philip II, an adult son was given responsibilities while the father yet lived, and through the father’s efforts bonds were formed with powerful individuals in the kingdom. When Philip was assassinated, Alexander had already been regent for his father in 340 (Plut. Alex. 9.1), and had led the cavalry at Chaeronea in 338 (Diod. 16.86.1–4), where the victory
ultimately brought to Philip the hegemony of Greece.
While there were challenges to Alexander’s succession, these were dealt with
quickly, both as a result of the competence of the new king and because of his allies in his father’s administration. While the perpetrator of Philip’s assassination,
Pausanias, was killed fleeing the scene, others were later charged with involvement in the plot. These included three aristocrats from Lyncestis, a region in Macedonia, the sons of Aëropus, Arrhabaeus, Heromenes, and Alexander (Arr. Anab. 1.25.1–2).
The assassin Pausanias murdered the king, not because of any political agenda,
but rather to avenge what he saw as a private grievance (Diod. 17.95.3–94.4).
The Lyncestian brothers likely also acted for personal reasons. Philip had exiled the brothers’ father (Polyaen. 4.2.3). Not being Argeads themselves, it is possible
they hoped through the assassination to bring Amyntas Perdicca, Philip’s nephew
and the son of Perdiccas III, Philip’s brother and his predecessor as king, to power (Arr. Succ. 1.22; Just. 12.6.14; Polyaen. 8.60). Plutarch ( Mor. 327C) reports that after Philip’s death, “all Macedonia was festering with revolt and looking toward Amyntas and the children of Aëropus.” The personal nature of the crime may
explain why it succeeded in killing Philip, but failed in achieving any loftier goals.
The conspirators wished primarily to wreak revenge; all else was secondary.
In Macedonia it had been critical in every succession that the new monarch
have the backing of at least a powerful faction of the royal hetairoi, the king’s companions. These individuals had for most of Macedonia’s history formed the