“War, both the King and Father of Al ”
157
Cyprus is not that astonishing. These individuals were first and foremost com-
manders of armies, and their power was personal and absolutist (Billows 1990:
241–8; Chaniotis 2005: 57–68). Once Antigonus was crowned as king, the others
would follow suit, but apparently needed some important event to precipitate
the action. “Neither nature nor justice gives kingdoms to men, but to those who
are able to lead an army and to handle affairs intelligently”: so states the definition of basileia (kingship) in the Byzantine lexicon, the Suda (s.v. basileia).
The importance of conquests and victories cannot be overestimated in any
discussion of these newly emerging dynasties. These new monarchies were tied to
imperialism. All of the Diadochs, as seen in the narrative, did not pursue policies that were concerned solely to the holding of those territories that they already
possessed, but rather they constantly sought to add to their power and posses-
sions. None of the Successors was immune to the quest. In a very real sense their royalty depended on their military success (Chaniotis 2005: 57–8). The centrality of military command to power arises from a long history in the Near East. It was
the goad that pushed Darius and Xerxes to attempt the conquest of Greece. It
was the stamp that Alexander the Great had put on this age. But, it was also the
practical result of the scramble for power that broke out on the Conqueror’s death.
With respect to the running of the state, the Successors followed Macedonian
tradition in that it was exercised at the highest level through their friends ( philoi) and solidified through patronage at all levels (Savalli-Lestrade 1998: 362–4,
378–80). As with Alexander, authority in the territories of the kingdom was
divided among a multiplicity of officials, in most cases answerable ultimately to the king directly. Thus, satraps might govern provinces, but cities typically had their own royal officials, and garrisons their independent commanders.
Chronology from 314 to 306
One of the more recent arguments for the high chronology concerns the Nemean
Games that were held under Cassander’s presidency. Since these games were held
every two years, both before and after the year of the Olympic Games, the only
possible years in which the Nemean Games could have taken place under the
presidency of Cassander as described in Diodorus are 315 and 313. Those in favor
of the high chronology accept 315, assuming that Cassander’s operations in the
Peloponnesus, which began when he heard that Aristodemus had arrived in
Greece and concluded with the celebration of the games, all occurred in the same
year, 315 (Boiy 2007b: 149; Stylianou 1994: 83; Meeus 2012: 76–7), as opposed to
the assumption that these events took place over a two-year period, with Cassander wintering near Orchomenus at the conclusion of his first year’s operations (as in this chapter’s narrative). Diodorus’ archon year 315/14 (19.55.1) corresponds to a period beginning with the late spring or more likely early summer of 315, with
Antigonus leaving Susa (19.55.1), having left winter quarters in Diodorus’ previous year (316/15) (19.46.1), then proceeding through Antigonus wintering in Malus,
158
Alexander’s Heirs
and concluding in the summer of 313, with the end of the fifteen-month siege
of Tyre and some subsequent naval operations (Diod. 19.62.6–9, 64.7–8). This
supposed archon year of 315/14 then covered two years.
Without the winter break in Orchomenus, Cassander’s operations – if they all
took place in the one year, 315 – become incredibly compressed. First, Diodorus
makes it very clear that Cassander did not move from Macedonia until he heard of
Aristodemus’ arrival in the Peloponnesus, “of the multitude of mercenaries that he had collected,” and of the alliance he had formed with Polyperchon and Alexander
(Diod. 19.63.3). Aristodemus left for Greece early in the year, but only after
Antigonus had left winter quarters, moved into northern Syria, and received the
envoys from his former allies, whose demands he rejected. After hearing of
the new alliance between Antigonus’ officer and Polyperchon, Cassander then
attempted to win the former regent over to his side before moving south. All of
these individual events would have taken time. It was then at the earliest late spring before Cassander marched his army south. He spent some time in Boeotia
rebuilding the Theban wal s, proceeded to capture the Corinthian port and two
other fortresses in Corinthia, before moving to Arcadia, there having the city of Orchomenus betrayed to him, from there proceeding to Messenia, and final y
returning to Megalopolis. All of these activities would have to have taken place
before August, when the Nemean Games began. Simply traveling, without
the other activities, the roughly 560 miles would have taken time. Even though
Diodorus does not indicate the entrance into winter quarters by Cassander bet-
ween his departure from Macedonia and the start of the Nemean Games, this is
clearly an oversight, for in the same time comparison (Europe/Asia), he also fails to note Antigonus entering winter quarters, thus placing the fifteen-month siege
of Tyre all in the same archon year.
While Diodorus’ chronology does have problems, he does appear to put events
noted geographical y into a relative sequence, and he makes a serious attempt
to correlate the different geographic sections within the same time period. His
difficulty with respect to events in Europe and Asia is that his source, again most likely in the main Hieronymus of Cardia, arranged events seasonal y (Smith
1961), while Diodorus attempted to implement his flawed chronological system
of archon and consular years, and Olympiads. In the case of Diodorus’ archon year 316/15 (19.17.1), he correlates Cassander’s campaign south, undertaken after
the death of Olympias, to his return to Macedonia (Diod. 19.53.1–2, 54.1, 3–4),
with the operations of Antigonus following his departure from Media down to his
arrival in Susa (Diod. 19.46.5, 48.7–8). Cassander’s invasion of the Peloponnesus in the following year, 315/14 (Diod. 19.55.1), including his presidency of the
Nemean Games and his return to Macedonia (Diod. 19.63.3–64.1), is correlated
with Antigonus’ activities from his departure from Susa (Diod. 19.55.1) to the fall of Tyre (Diod. 19.61.5). It is clear that Diodorus, with respect to Antigonus, has related events that happened over two winters, that spent by him in Malus in
Cilicia and the other likely at Tyre in the midst of his fifteen-month siege, which only began after Antigonus’ departure from Malus. It should then be assumed that
“War, both the King and Father of Al ”
159
Diodorus followed the same chronological pattern with regard to Cassander’s
activities during the same narrated time period. If this particular invasion of
the Peloponnesus by Cassander begins in one year and ends in the next, then the
problem of the Nemean Games is eliminated. By the low chronology, Cassander
invaded the Peloponnesus after the arrival of Aristodemus in 314 and after wintering in the Peloponnesus presided at the games in August of 313.
Diodorus’ archon year 314/13 (19.66.1) then begins in the summer of 313, and
concludes with the winter of that same year. The last reference to Antigonus in this archon year has that commander entering winter quarters (Diod. 19.69.2). There
then follows the indication of the new archon year, 313/12 (Diod. 19.73.1), which in reality then corresponds to the start of 312, with Antigonus leaving these
same winter quarters (Diod. 19.74.1) and Polemaeus still in winter quarters when
Asander and Prepelaus attempt their surprise attack (Diod. 19.68.5). This year
then ends in the following winter, with the new archon year, 312/11 (Diod.
19.77.1), beginning with the spring departure of Polemaeus for Greece (cf. Diod.
19.77.1), and concluding in the winter with Antigonus (19.77.7) and Cassander
entering winter quarters (19.89.2), and Demetrius returning from his attack on
Babylonia (19.100.7). It is clear that Diodorus’ archon year 312/11 reflects events occurring in the solar year 311.
The Battle of Gaza then took place in the late fall of 312: given the many refer-
ences to winter around the time of the conflict, probably in November (see Anson
2006b: 228–9), or perhaps as early as October (Wheatley 2003a: 271–5; cf. 2009b:
328n. 22, 329–33). The high chronology dates the battle in the spring of 312, but much of this argument has now been demolished (Boiy 2007b: 115–17; Wheatley
2009b: 328 n. 22). Moreover, Diodorus’ narrative of the prelude to the battle excludes such an early date. Demetrius (19.80.5), Antigonus (19.77.7), and Cassander
(19.89.2) were all clearly in winter quarters prior to the conflict, and Diodorus 19.77.7 states that Antigonus took up winter quarters when the “winter season was closing in on him,” and was still in these quarters when the letter from Demetrius calling him back to Syria arrived (Diod. 19.85.8, 93.3).
However, a new piece of evidence, one of the Idumaean ostraca, has been pre-
sented which has in some circles been claimed to revive the old high chronology
dating of spring of 312 (Porten and Yardeni 2008: 248). An ostracon dated to the
reign of an Alexander, assumed to be Alexander IV, has been dated July 5, 312,
by Porten and Yardeni (2008: 248–9). Such an ostracon does appear anomalous in
a listing of what previously are mostly Antigonid issues, and might suggest that
Antigonus was no longer in control of this area, and that those recording these
transactions reverted to the previous dating system of reference to Alexander’s
regnal years to accommodate the seizure of the area by Ptolemy. Porten and
Yardeni (2008: 249) also list two ostraca referencing Alexander in the midst of
what are mostly Antigonid notations beginning in July 315. These are dated by
Alexander (IV) to July 21, 315 (a most curious one since there is a surviving
ostracon dated by reference to Antigonus equivalent to July 20, 315), and April 10, 314. These two would appear to negate the hypothesis that the changes represent
160
Alexander’s Heirs
changes in control of Idumaea. In the high chronology, this area was controlled by Antigonus from early 315 to the spring of 312; in the low, from early 314 to late in 312. The simplest solution to this problem is that variant dating systems were used concurrently in Idumaea, as they were in Babylonia (see comments in the chronology section of Chapter 4 above). Given the claim that these dates correspond
with those in Babylon (Boiy 2007b: 90–1), it needs to be noted that cuneiform
documents have been found that are dated with reference to Antigonus 3–9, and
others dated, by Alexander IV, 1–11 (Boiy 2007b: 24–5). Antigonus 3 is the
equivalent of Alexander IV 2; Antigonus 5 = Alexander IV 4, and so on (Boiy 2000: 121). Of course, if this particular ostracon refers to Alexander the Great, rather than to Alexander IV as proposed, the problem evaporates. Moreover, there are
other ostraca also dated with reference to regnal years for an Alexander, which
complicate Porten and Yardeni’s conclusion. Two of these, if referring to Alexander IV, can be dated to February 22, 311 (Porten and Yardeni 2008: 249; Wheatley
2003a: 271–5). Now, if these three particular ostraca refer to Alexander IV and do represent a change in the ruler of this region, and none are in error or representing concurrently used dating systems, then there is a problem. After the Battle of
Gaza, Antigonus moved rapidly from Celaenae to join his son in Syria, with the
result that Ptolemy retreated all the way back to Egypt (Diod. 19.93.3–5). If all three of these ostraca dated by reference to Alexander IV are accepted as accurate reflections of changes in regional leadership related to the Battle of Gaza, then Ptolemy must have held on to this area for more than seven months. If one ignores the ostracon tentatively dated July 5, 312, accepting it as some variant dating, but accepts the other two dated February 22, as reflective of Antigonus’ loss of this area due to his son’s defeat, then, as Wheatley has argued, this is clear support for the low chronological date by demonstrating that Ptolemy was in charge of the area in February 311. However, the likely explanation for the ostraca dates is that multiple dating systems were in use.
Further evidence for the date of the battle comes from the Phoenician city of
Sidon which issued a Ptolemaic coin dated by Merker (1964: 14–15) to year 22 in
the Sidonian sequence, or 312/11, which most likely is to be connected to Ptolemy’s victory at Gaza (Merker 1964: 14–15; Wheatley 2003a: 271–5). As to the year,
Sidon was the first Phoenician city to go over to Ptolemy (Diod. 19.86.1), and the Sidonian year began in autumn (see most recently Wheatley 2003a: 274–5; cf. Boiy
2007b: 39). The Parian Marble ( FGrH 239 B 16) places this battle in the Athenian archon year 312/11. From this preponderance of evidence, then, the battle must
have occurred late in 312.
This analysis of Diodorus’ archon year sequencing of events is supported by
certain Babylonian cuneiform tablets relating to Seleucus. As noted in the chapter narrative, after the defeat of Demetrius in the Battle of Gaza, Seleucus was given a small force by Ptolemy and proceeded to invade Babylonia. According to Diodorus
(19.90.1), Seleucus and his force left for Babylon before Antigonus’ arrival in
Phoenicia and clearly before the start of Diodorus’ next year (19.105.1), which
began in 310. The cuneiform tablet BCHP 3, Rev. 3–12 narrates Seleucus’ arrival
“War, both the King and Father of Al ”
161
in Babylon in April or May of 311 (van der Spek 2013a). Moreover, the Babylonian
King List (BM 35603; see van der Spek 2013b) reports: “Year 7 (SE), which is year 1; Seleucus (I Nicator was) king. He reigned for 25 years. Year 31 (SE), Ululu
[month VI], Se[leucus] the king was killed in the land (of the) Hanaeans” (BM
35603 Obv. 6–8). The document refers to two different systems for dating Seleucus’
reign. Year 31 refers to his rule over his native Babylonian subjects; the figure of 25, to his assumption of the crown with respect to his “Greek” subjects (Boiy 2000:
117–18). Seleucus’ regnal years are exactly dated by BM 41660 (trans. Stephenson
1997: 133), which relates Seleucus’ “thirtieth year” to a solar eclipse. This eclipse occurred on January 30, 281 (Stephenson 1997: 133). Seleucus was murdered in
the late summer of 281, or in his thirty-first regnal year, as specifical y dated in the Babylonian King List (BM 35603 Obv. 7–8; see van der Spek 2013b). Seleucus then
returned to Babylon in 311.
After 311, Diodorus’ chronology, always somewhat confused, becomes more
difficult to follow, with his increasing emphasis on Sicilian affairs, and the career of the tyrant Agathocles in particular. Diodorus’ archon year 311/10, while reflecting events occurring in 310, with respect to events in the east of the Adriatic, only references the Peace of 311/10, which took place late in 311 or very early in 310, and the deaths of Alexander IV and his mothe
r Roxane (Diod. 19.105.1–2). In
Book 20, forty-seven chapters are devoted to Sicilian and North African affairs,
and forty-eight to events in the world of the Diadochs. Moreover, eighteen of the chapters dealing with the eastern Mediterranean concern Demetrius’ siege of
Rhodes. While his source for European/Asian events, likely Hieronymus, was very
careful of chronological matters, often making reference to times of day, seasons, solstices, and the rising or setting of fixed stars (Anson 2004: 19 and nn. 118–20), it is clear that, for events in Sicily, Diodorus is following a different source who paid far less attention to precise chronology.
Diodorus’ archon year 310/9 (20.3.1) likely covers the period from the late
summer 310 to the summer of 309; the year 309/8 (20.27.1) the period from the
summer of 309 to that year’s concluding winter. Diodorus 20.28.4 states that
Polyperchon, after his failure to invade the Peloponnesus, “passed the winter” in Locris, hence the winter of 309/8, since his start of archon year 309/8 (20.27.1) is placed previous to this reference. Diodorus records the founding of Lysimacheia
(20.29.1) in 309/8, as does the Parian Marble, along with Ophel as’ expedition in North Africa, and Cleopatra’s death ( FGrH 239 B 19). Diodorus’ next archon year, 308/7 (20.37.1), corresponds again to a solar year, beginning in the spring and
ending in the winter of 308. This date is confirmed by the start of 307/6 (20.45.1).
This year (in actuality 307) is fixed. Plutarch ( Demetr. 8.5) reports that Demetrius arrived at Piraeus “on the twenty-sixth of the month Thargelion,” or in early June.
The Parian Marble ( FGrH 239 B 20) places the liberation in the archon year 308/7, and the destruction of Munychia in 307/6 ( FGrH 239 B 21). Diodorus (20.45.5) states that Demetrius of Phalerum served in his position in Athens for ten years
(cf. Str. 9.1.20), having become the guardian of Athens in 317 ([Parian Marble]
FGrH 239 B 13); and later proclaims that fifteen years after the end of the Lamian
162
Alexander’s Heirs
Alexanders Heirs Page 33
