then is slain; Cassander campaigns in Aetolia and Illyria;
Polemaeus invades Caria; Seleucus and the Athenian
admiral Aristotle unsuccessful y attack Lemnos
Early Winter
Cassander sends an army to Caria; Antigonus leaves
Demetrius in Syria and moves to Phrygia
Winter 313/12
Antigonus in Celaenae; Asander briefly allies
with Antigonus; revolt of Pontic cities
312
February
Antigonus gains control of Carian cities
Late Spring/
Telesphorus to Greece
Early Summer
Summer
Polemaeus sent to Greece; revolt of Cyrene
Summer/Fal
Polemaeus’ operations in Greece; Cassander in Epirus
and Euboea
Fal
Ptolemy to Cyprus: Telesphorus deserts Antigonid cause
and attacks Elis; Elis freed and Telesphorus returns to
allegiance; Battle of Gaza; Ptolemy occupies Phoenicia
Winter 312/11
Demetrius defeats Cilles; Antigonus in Syria
311
April
Seleucus retakes Babylon
Spring/Summer
Demetrius’ Nabataean campaign
Fal
Seleucus occupies Media and Susiane; Demetrius’
raid on Babylonia
Winter 311/10
Peace between Antigonus, Cassander, Ptolemy,
and Lysimachus
310
Spring
Murders of Roxane and Alexander IV
Late Spring/
Antigonus invades Babylonia
Summer
Chronology
xiii
309
Late Spring/
Polemaeus revolts from Antigonus; Ptolemy’s operations
Early Summer
in Cilicia; death of Polemaeus
Summer
Death of Heracles, son of Alexander the Great
Fall/Winter
Founding of Lysimacheia
308
Spring
Ptolemy’s operations in Lycia; his acquisition of Sicyon
and Corinth
Summer
Ophel as’ campaign in North Africa; return of Antigonus
from the east; murder of Cleopatra, sister of Alexander
the Great; Seleucus occupies upper satrapies, makes treaty
with Chandragupta
307
Spring
Ptolemy’s operations in the Aegean and Greece; Demetrius
“frees” Athens
Fal
Pyrrhus becomes king of Epirus
306
Spring
Demetrius’ operations in Cyprus begin; founding
of Antigoneia-on-the-Orontes
June
Battle of Salamis; Antigonus and Demetrius proclaimed
kings
Summer
Surrender of Cyprus to Demetrius; death of Philip,
November
Antigonus and Demetrius’ failed invasion of Egypt
305
Spring
Demetrius launches attack on Rhodes
304
Spring
Cassander captures island of Salamis, besieging Athens;
Demetrius abandons siege of Rhodes, and returns
to Athens; other Diadochs proclaim themselves kings
Summer
Demetrius’ advance into Boeotia and Euboea
303
Spring
Demetrius invades the Peloponnesus, captures Sicyon
and Corinth; new Hellenic league
Summer
Cleonymus captures Corcyra
Late Summer/Fal Demetrius secures Achaea, all of Arcadia, except Mantinea,
and Argos; marries Deidameia and forms as alliance
with Epirus
Winter 303/2
Failed attempt by Cassander to make peace with Antigonus
302
Winter
Alliance of Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus
against Antigonus
xiv Chronology
Spring
Start of Fourth Diadoch War; formation of new League
of Corinth; Demetrius initiated into Eleusinian Mysteries
April/May
Lysimachus and Cassander’s general Prepelaus cross to Asia
Summer
Antigonus moves into Asia Minor
Summer/Fal
Demetrius campaigning in Thessaly
Fal
Antigonus and Lysimachus campaigning in Phrygia;
Pyrrhus forced from the throne of Epirus and joins
Demetrius
Winter 302/1
Demetrius recalled from Greece; Ptolemy seizes Phoenicia
and returns to Egypt; Corcyra independent
301
Late Spring
Battle of Ipsus; death of Antigonus
300
Spring
New alliance between Ptolemy, Cassander, and
Lysimachus; alliance between Seleucus and Demetrius;
Demetrius takes possession of Cilicia; Lachares takes
control of Athens
Late Spring/
Alliance between Demetrius and Ptolemy; Pyrrhus
Summer
to Egypt as a hostage for Demetrius’ good behavior
298?
Demetrius’ failed attempt to “liberate” Athens
298/97
Winter
Death of Cassander, succeeded by son Philip (IV)
297
Spring
Death of Philip IV, ruler of Macedonia; Macedonia divided
among Cassander’s surviving sons, Alexander and Antipater
Early Summer
Pyrrhus returns to Epirus
Summer
Demetrius in Peloponnesus
295
Spring?
Demetrius begins siege of Athens
294
Spring
Demetrius “liberates” Athens
Spring/Summer
Summer
Civil war between the brothers in Macedonia;
intervention of Pyrrhus
Late Summer/
Demetrius arrives in response to invitation
Early Fall
from Alexander
Fal
Murder of Alexander IV; Demetrius (I) king of Macedonia
Winter 294/3
Foundation of Demetrias
293
Marriage of Antiochus and Stratonice
291
Demetrius marries Lanassa
Chronology
xv
288
Spring
With Demetrius preparing to invade Asia Minor,
new coalition of Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus,
and Pyrrhus is formed against him
Fal
Lysimachus and Pyrrhus invade Macedonia;
Macedonia divided between Lysimachus and Pyrrhus;
Demetrius flees to Cassandreia; death of Phila
Winter
Murder of Antipater
287
Spring
Reestablishment of Athenian democracy;
Ptolemy new patron of Nesiotic League
Summer
Ptolemy repudiates Eurydice and Ceraunus;
Ptolemy regains Cyprus; Demetrius returns to Asia
286
Demetrius campaigning in Asia Minor
285
Spring
Seleucus captures Demetrius; Lysimachus subverts
Pyrrhus’ army and becomes sole king of Macedonia
284
Summer?
Ptolemy Philadelphus made co-ruler of Egypt
283
Win
ter 283/2
Lysimachus murders his son Agathocles
282
February?
Death of Demetrius
Spring?
Death of Ptolemy I; Ptolemy (II) Philadelphus,
sole ruler of Egypt
282/81 Winter
Seleucus invades Lysimachus’ possessions in Asia Minor
281
February/March
Battle of Corrupedium; death of Lysimachus
Summer
Seleucus crosses to Macedonia; Seleucus murdered by
Ceraunus (September); Ceraunus, king of Macedonia
280
Death of Ceraunus
276
Antigonus Gonatas king of Macedonia
Preface
This work is not a history of the Hellenistic Age, only those slightly more than
forty years that followed Alexander the Great’s death. Its purpose is to look
critical y at the events which, and the personalities who, set the path upon which the Hellenistic world would proceed, not to examine the resulting journey. It is
designed both for scholars and also for the general reader. While presenting a
narrative of events, this narrative will be interspersed with the more important
scholarly debates that affect so completely this history of the events that occurred more than twenty-three centuries ago. Many of these debates on some of the finer
points have been either ignored or relegated to footnotes, so as not to disrupt the flow of the narrative. However, the more important ones will be set forth in their appropriate place in the narrative. Only in the case of certain chronological
controversies will the debates appear in a separate section at the end of particular chapters. The ultimate goal is to present a readable and reasoned account of
Alexander’s Successors, the Diadochi.
As with all my works, I wish to thank my wife Jeanne for putting up with me in
general, and more particularly I am most grateful for her aid in reading and
commenting on what I have written. I also wish to thank my colleagues in the field of Alexander and Hellenistic studies, and especial y those affectionately known as the “Alexander Group.” To them all goes my appreciation for their support and
insights over these many years. I would also like to thank the editors at Wiley
Blackwel , Haze Humbert for suggesting the project and working with the
prospectus, Allison Kostka for shepherding it to completion, and Janet Moth for
proofing the final manuscript. For all of their assistance I am very grateful.
Map 1 Regions of Macedonia
Map 2 Greece and Asia Minor
Map 3 The Hellenistic world
1
Introduction
Any history of the Diadochi, the Successors, the generals who inherited the empire of Alexander the Great, will of necessity be an adventure story of larger-than-life characters pursuing glory and empire. This was an age that arose directly out of
the conquests of one of the most mercurial figures in world history. It is only by comparison to the great Conqueror himself that these individuals’ exploits pale.
After al , they were fighting over an empire, stretching from Greece to Egypt to
India, that he had created, and that ultimately none of them singularly could hold.
Yet it is in their struggles with each other over what might be called Alexander’s estate that the Hellenistic world was created. This estate over which they contended was both material and mythical. On the one hand, there was the physical, territorial, empire, but on the other was the legend of Alexander himself. This myth that grew with each passing year was often the exemplar by which supporters of the various
Diadochi would measure their generals and rulers. Alexander, however, himself
was but a catalyst in the creation of this new age (Anson 2013b: 181–8). He set the stage; he conquered the old Persian nemesis that had haunted Greek affairs since
the sixth century bc, but then he left that stage. In his leaving, he is supposed to have said, when asked to whom he left his empire, “to the strongest.” He certainly had done little to ensure the empire’s survival. In the words of Ernst Badian (1964a: 203), “Alexander was, essential y, not interested in a future without himself.” He left a legacy of tremendous potential, but also one of administrative ambiguity and a
world wedded to warfare as the means to virtual y every end.
At his death, Alexander’s potential heirs were a child, Heracles, by a mistress; a half-brother of dubious competence, and an as yet unborn son by his Bactrian or
Sogdian wife Roxane (Heckel 2006: 187, 241). In short, there was to be no smooth
transition in power, and, in the final analysis, Alexander’s family, the Argeads, would not long survive the great king’s death.
While his Successors contended in a world in which few parameters had been
set, some of these were to resound until the fall of the various Hellenistic states to Rome, and in some cases to transcend even this conquest. These qualities were
especial y important given the personal nature of Alexander’s empire and his
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.
2
Alexander’s Heirs
Successors’ kingdoms. Unlike the later Roman empire, in which lands secured
overseas by Roman armies redounded to the benefit of the Roman state, Alexander’s conquests were regarded as his personal possessions won through his personal
triumphs. For Alexander, Macedonia was a manpower resource only. His connec-
tion to his homeland grew dimmer with every new conquest and with every step
he took further into the east. He even planned to center his empire on Babylon
(Str. 15.3.9–10). This personal aspect of rule was one of Alexander’s major legacies to his Successors. Alexander’s kingdom was one won on the battlefield, and warfare was not just the backdrop of Alexander’s initial conquests, but also that of the first forty years of the Hellenistic age. The ruler as general, ever attempting to increase his personal domains, is the history of the Hellenistic world, and, perhaps, the
legacy of Alexander not just to his contemporaries, the Successors, about whom
this book relates, but to the age as a whole.
This history is a story of vaulting ambition, treachery, and wars almost without
cessation. It was this inheritance, first from Alexander, and then from his immediate true heirs, his generals, that formed the underpinnings of the entire Hellenistic period. Even after the establishment of relatively stable royal families in the kingdoms carved from Alexander’s empire by the second and third generations of the
Conqueror’s successors, personal monarchy and warfare remained the staples of
the new age. Alexander’s generation was to serve as a transition from the conquest itself to the more settled world by comparison that appeared with the emergence
of formal Hellenistic states. In part, these more settled conditions were the result of the emptying of the vast treasuries that had been captured from the Persians. These funds fueled the almost incessant warfare of the Successors.
While Alexander had not created an empire that was fixed by tradition or
institutions, he had created a governmental pattern that was to be reinforced
by his more successful Diadochs. Alexander had in the main copied the
administrative structure of the Persian empire, which had the various regions
divided up into provinces or satrapies, under the administrative authority of a
governor or satrap, but Alexander’s legacy was much more than the transmittal
of some basic Persian administrative organization, and it was this inheritance
that was conti
nued and enhanced by his Successors. Alexander had created his
empire in war and blood, and those who came after him fought for their share
of this inheritance in the same fashion. The Successors had to demonstrate their
fitness to rule on a regular basis, while their descendants owed their legitimacy, in the main, to their forebears. For Alexander the core of his empire was his
increasingly polyglot army, with the military camp serving as his true capital.
With few exceptions this was another way in which those who followed emulated
the Conqueror. With respect to those territories brought under their aegis
through conquest, the Successors mostly sought to dominate these areas through
garrisons and often, again in the pattern of Alexander, with city foundations, but also through securing the loyalty of local elites. With regard to the last, Alexander had been most adept (Briant 2002: 870, 842–4, 1046–60), and among his
Successors, Peucestas and Seleucus were noted for their acceptance of foreign
Introduction
3
traditions and peoples. Peucestas, Alexander’s satrap of Persis, wore Persian
dress, learned the Persian language (Arr. Anab. 6.30.2–3), and treated many Persians as his close, personal, advisors and allies (Diod. 19.22.2). Later, in the second great contest of Alexander’s Successors, Peucestas assembled an army
that included 6000 Persian archers and slingers, 3000 heavy infantry made up
of “men of many races … in Macedonian array,” and 400 Persian cavalrymen
(Diod. 19.14.5). Seleucus’ later success in securing much of the east was tied to his ability “to find common ground with the native populations” (Olbrycht 2013:
168). In both Babylonia and Iran his “generosity” and “benevolence” secured the
support of even the common people (Diod. 19.91.2, 92.5).
As part of this courting of the local elite, it was equal y important for the successful Diadoch to recognize the nature of the military organization bequeathed by
Alexander. This was no longer the national force of Macedonia, but rather a
polyglot army of different nationalities, including increasing numbers of true
mercenaries, but with all exhibiting many of the characteristics of mercenaries
(Anson 1991: 230–47). Troops in this period tended to follow leaders who were
both successful on the battlefield and excellent paymasters. Often, defeated armies would desert their now beaten general and enter service with the commander of
the victorious force. The other aspect of these armies of the Diadochs was that,
while they may have had Macedonian cores, the majority of the troops were Asians