Alexander the Great. Cassander had been sent to Babylon in 324 to respond for his father to charges of treason by the king (Plut. Alex. 74.2–6). There is clear evidence that Cassander and Alexander did not get along (Plut. Alex. 74.2–6; Mor. 180 F).
Chronology from Spring 318 to Spring 315
With respect to the chronology of the years following Eumenes’ release from
Nora down to his death, there is considerable debate. The key element concerns
the year in which Eumenes departed Phoenicia, either in 318 according to the
“high chronology” or in 317, by the “low.” Those proposing a mixed chronology,
while accepting the low’s determination of the year of the death of Perdiccas and the meeting at Triparadeisus, support the high for the great campaign between
Antigonus and Eumenes. After Eumenes’ departure for the east, Diodorus (19.12–
19.34, 37–44.4) narrates his progress up to and including his death, which occurred approximately a year and a half later during the winter of either 317/16 or 316/15, with a fair degree of precision. The time of Eumenes’ flight to the east then becomes critical for the chronology of this period. Diodorus places Eumenes’ flight in
the archon year 318/17 (Diod. 18.58.1), however, he clearly begins this year in the spring of 318 with Eumenes’ release from Nora (Diod. 18.58.1), and in Europe
soon after Cassander’s flight to Asia during the winter of 319/18.
The End of a Dynasty
117
Diodorus’ archon year 317/16 (19.2.1) begins in Macedonia with Eurydice’s
seizure of the regency (19.11.1), which must have occurred in the fall 317, given that Philip III was murdered sometime between October (19.11.5) and late
December of 317 ( Astronomical Diaries 2001: 7, no. 2 V’ 12’), and in Asia with Eumenes in winter quarters (Diod. 19.12.1). Diodorus, then, has continued his
archon year 318/17 to the fall of 317. Diodorus then concludes his archon year
317/16 with Eumenes in Susiane refreshing his troops (19.15.6) in the spring
before his confrontation with Antigonus on the Coprates river sometime in July at the “rising of the Dog Star” (19.18.2–3). Diodorus places the battle after the start of his new archon year, 316/15 (19.17.1). Thus, he places the battle in the summer of 316. Diodorus’ dating then clearly supports the low chronology. This archon
year begins with Antigonus leaving his winter quarters in Mesopotamia (19.17.2),
and Cassander hastening to Macedonia after the death of Philip III (19.35.1), and continuing through the winter and spring (19.46.1, 50.1), and into the summer
(19.47.1–48.8, 51.6–54.4). 315/14 (19.55.1) then begins in the summer of 315.
The Parian Marble ( FGrH 239 B F-13) dates the sea battle between Nicanor and Cleitus in the Hellespont in 317/16, an event which preceded Eumenes’ flight from Phoenicia. Malcolm Errington (1977: 494, 496) assigns the sea battles in the
Hellespont to July of 317. If one accepts the Marble’s dating, then July is the latest month in which the battles could have occurred in 317. The Athenian archon
year began in July. Gul ath and Schober (1986: 352) place the battles simply in
the summer of 317. Lara O’Sullivan (2009: 38) places these naval operations in the north in “late 318.” Given the evidence of the Marble, these campaigns must
have occurred in the summer of 317. However, it is to be noted that the Marble
omits all reference to the archon year 318/17.
Additional chronological references are provided with respect to the career of
Demetrius of Phalerum, Cassander’s agent in Athens. He is reported to have served in this position for “ten years” (Diod. 20.45.5; Str. 9.1.20) and was deposed in 308/7
([Parian Marble] FGrH 239 B F-20; Plut. Demetr. 8.3–5; Diod. 20.45.1), which occurred after Antigonus’ son Demetrius’ entrance into the city, an event most likely taking place in May or June, hence, 307. The Marble ( FGrH 239 B 20) places “his
[Demetrius of Phalerum] legislation,” that which created this moderate oligarchy, in 317/16. Diodorus (18.74.3), likewise, places Demetrius’ rule in Athens as beginning in 317. The Parian Marble ( FGrH 239 B 12) additional y begins the rule of Agathocles in Syracuse in 316/15; Diodorus in his archon year 317/16 (20.3.1). Diodorus
19.1.10, however, states that the time between Agathocles accession as “general with absolute power” (Diod. 19.9.4) and the Battle of Himera (Diod. 19.108.2–110.1)
was a period of seven years. This battle occurred in the “season of the Dog Star”
(Diod. 19.109.5), therefore in July, and Diodorus’ following year 310/9 (20.3.1)
begins with the aftermath of the battle and includes a reference to a solar eclipse, which occurred on August 15, 310 (Diod. 20.5.5; misdated to 312/11 by the Parian
Marble [ FGrH 239 B 16]; for the date, see Stephenson 1997: 348). The Battle of Himera then took place in July of 310; the “period of seven years” thus began in
the summer of 317. All of these references support the low chronology.
Alexander’s Heirs
Diodorus’ (19.91.2) reference to the flight of Seleucus from his satrapy of
Babylon to Egypt (19.55), as part of Antigonus’ acquisition of the east after his defeat of Eumenes, has been claimed to support the high chronology. Diodorus
reports that this flight occurred after he had been satrap for “four years.” Since Seleucus was appointed satrap of Babylonia at the Triparadeisus meeting in the
late summer of 320 (see Chapter 3) and entered the city on November 14, 320
( BCHP 3, Obv. 26–7), this would put his later flight from Babylon in either the late summer, from the date of his appointment at Triparadeisus, or in the fall of 316, from the time of his actual occupation; the later date more clearly fits the context of Diodorus’ narrative. It is reasonably clear that Seleucus fled from Babylon in the late spring. Using the November start of the time period, then, if the year of his flight was 316, as claimed by those supporting the high chronology, the actual time period from arrival in and departure from Babylon was roughly three and a half
years; if in 315, as in the low, about four and half. This claimed evidence for the high chronology, then, is clearly not as decisive as some have claimed (Stylianou 1994: 83–4; Meeus 2012: 77–8).
As noted above, while the Parian Marble does not specifical y mention Eumenes’
departure from Phoenicia, it does place Cleitus’ sea victory over Nicanor in 317/16.
This victory was followed by Antigonus defeat of the former victor, which in turn precipitated Eumenes’ flight east, and by the implied dating of the Marble this
occurred in the summer, perhaps then in June or early July of 317 (Anson 2006a:
4–6, 8). The Parian Marble ( FGrH 239 B 14) dates Cassander’s “return to Macedonia”
in 316/15, as does Diodorus (19.17.1). Given that Diodorus presents events from
the time of Eumenes’ departure for the east in a clear chronological manner,
Eumenes’ death occurred in January of 315, not in the previous year’s first month.
Moreover, Diodorus’ narrative correlates the deaths of Eumenes and Olympias.
Diodorus (19.50.8, 52.4) remarks that when Olympias surrendered Eumenes’
death was not yet known. By the evidence in Diodorus, the death of the mother of
Alexander the Great clearly took place in 315, since sometime after her death in
the spring (cf. Diod. 19.50.1), Cassander entered Boeotia and reestablished the city of Thebes in “the twentieth year” since its destruction by Alexander the Great
(Diod. 19.54.1). The destruction of Thebes occurred in late September of 335
(Bosworth 1980b: 92; 1988a: 33), or in the archon year 335/34. The Parian Marble
dates the restoration in the archon year 316/15 ( FGrH 239 B F-14), as does Diodorus (19.17.1; cf. Diod. 19.5
5.1), which corresponds with the restoration
being in “the twentieth year.” The third-century ad author Eusebius [Porphyry]
( FGrH 260 F-3.4), in his Cronica, records Olympias’ death in the first year of the 116th Olympiad, or 316/15. Since the Olympics took place at the height of summer
and it is clear that Alexander’s mother was murdered in the spring, the year must have been 315 by this source’s determination.
Other evidence from Babylonian cuneiform tablets or Idumaean ostraca has
called forth support for both the high and the low chronological schemes. Both of these sources date by regnal years. The Babylonian Chronicle ( BCHP 3, Obv. 33–4) states that in October of the seventh year of King Philip III, a “royal” army, operating
The End of a Dynasty
119
near the city of Babylon, secured possession of one of the Babylonian citadels. This would place the action in 317, since Philip had become king in June of 323 (Boiy
2000; Anson 2002/3: 376–80, Chapter 2). Official y the only “royal” army operating in this area during this time would have been that of Eumenes of Cardia. However, there are problems with this identification. It is very clear from Diodorus’ narrative that Eumenes never occupied the city, and it has been questioned who exactly controlled these “royal forces.” Was it the current royal general in Asia, Eumenes
(Anson 2012b), or the previous occupant of that office, Antigonus (Boiy 2010)?
Since the year is clearly 317, as indicated in the Babylonian tablet, then, if the former, Eumenes began his flight from Phoenicia in 317; if the latter, in 318,
since Antigonus arrived on the scene in the year following Eumenes’ arrival. The
fragment does make reference to King Philip (III) under whose auspices Eumenes
held his command. Moreover, this fact was not unknown in the region. Eumenes
carried with him letters to be delivered to satraps and garrison commanders,
including those in Babylon, explaining his commission (Diod. 19.13.7). In the
refusal by Seleucus to join with Eumenes, there was apparently no attempt to refute Eumenes’ commission. At least, no such argument is put forward in the sources.
Seleucus proclaimed his desire to be of service to the kings, but refused to obey Eumenes because of that commander’s earlier condemnation by the assembled
troops in Egypt after the assassination of the first regent and Eumenes’ close al y, Perdiccas (Diod. 19.12.2). Tom Boiy argues, however, that Antigonus had been
the royal general previously and that these royal troops are therefore his. In this reconstruction of events, this conflict took place after Eumenes’ departure and
involved some of Antigonus’ troops. The “royal” troops were then those left in
Babylon by Antigonus, who for some unspecified reason came into conflict with
forces loyal to the satrap Seleucus, in essence a war between the troops of the
new allies (2010: 8–11). Antigonus is not listed as deploying any troops in Babylon, and, in fact, adds the bulk of Seleucus’ forces to his own for the upcoming campaign against Eumenes (Diod. 19.17.2, 27.1), who had moved with his troops out of
Babylonia prior to the arrival of Antigonus (Diod. 19.13.5). It is more likely that the commander of one of the two citadels in Babylon (Diod. 19.100.7; Plut Demetr.
7.2),46 held under a separate authority, had accepted Eumenes as the true representative of the kings and for a time resisted Antigonus and the Babylonian satrap.
Alexander the Great in Babylonia had divided authority between the governor and
a separate commander in at least one citadel in the city of Babylon (Curt. 5.1.43; Diod. 17.64.5; Arr. Anab. 3.16.4). Even though this is nowhere clearly stated, this division of authority likely continued. In 311, there was a separate commander in the Babylonian citadel, when Seleucus returned to Babylon after having been
forced to flee by Antigonus (see next chapter). While Babylonia and the city of
Babylon welcomed his return, Diphilus, the commander of one of the citadels in
the city, resisted and Seleucus had to storm the citadel ( BCHP 3, Rev. 6–8; Diod.
19.91.3–4). Such divisions of authority during the Successor period are also found in the satrapy of Cilicia where Cyinda was under an independent commander
(Diod. 18.62.2), and in the satrapy of Persis with regard to the city of Susa and its
120
Alexander’s Heirs
treasury (Diod. 19.17.3; cf. Curt. 5.2.16). Both of these commanders, in, respec-
tively, Cyinda and Susa, obeyed the commands of Eumenes, who clearly for them
represented the true royal authority in Asia. What then likely took place and what BCHP 3, Obv. 33–4 is referencing is that the citadel commander declared for the party of the kings and regent, and their “royal general,” i. e. Eumenes, but with Seleucus in control of the city he was unable to join forces with the Cardian, and was only able for a time to maintain an independent authority within the city. The letters from the kings had been sufficient to ensure obedience to Eumenes from
the commanders in Cyinda and Susa. Both clearly recognized who represented the
true royal authority in Asia. It is likely that this was also the case in Babylon.
With the discovery of large numbers of ostraca, currently over 1700, from the
area of Idumaea, now part of southeastern Israel and southwestern Jordan, and
possibly produced at a royal storehouse in Makkedah (Lemaire 1996: 1, 21; 2006:
414), additional, albeit again controversial, material has been added to the debate.
A critical number of these ostraca make reference to Antigonus. With no ostraca
so far discovered that are recorded as Antigonus 1 or 2, but a good number dated
Antigonus 3, this chronology, it is claimed, reflects that of Babylonia where
Antigonus’ theoretical first year corresponds with 317/16 (Porten and Yardeni
2008: 245–9), but dated contemporary documents begin only with Antigonus 3.
Other dated ostraca appear to correspond with the Babylonian regnal dating
of monarchs of the late Achaemenid and early Hellenistic era (Boiy 2007b: 90–1;
Porten and Yardeni 2008: 238). If this chronological identification is accepted
and it is not assumed that these Antigonid dates relate to a separate Idumaean
chronology (so Lemaire 1996: 42–5; 2002: 199–201; Anson 2005: 265–6), then
Antigonus 3 becomes 315/14 (Boiy 2007a: 204–5; 2007b: 91).
In Babylon, there was confusion over dating items with respect to regnal years
which resulted in multiple systems. Years were dated by Philip III for a year past his death (Philip 8, or 316/15), corresponding to a first year for Alexander IV, and the third year of Antigonus (Boiy 2007b: 24–5). The third year reference postdates
the beginning of his reign, then, to 318/17, corresponding to Philip 7, this monarch’s true last year 317/16, and Alexander IV, 2 (Boiy 2000: 116–21; 2006: 47–8; 2007b: 24).
As noted in the earlier narrative, King Philip III died sometime after mid-October and perhaps as late as December 317. Antigonus’ presumed first year would then
correspond with his arrival in Babylon in pursuit of Eumenes. The Babylonian
year began during these years in April (Parker and Dubberstein 1956: 36). Thus,
this first year would reflect Antigonus’ arrival in Babylon sometime after April 8, 317, and before April 20, 316 (Parker and Dubberstein 1956: 36). Antigonus was
in winter quarters in Mesopotamia when the news that Eumenes had joined
with the forces of the upper satrapies reached him. He proceeded to Babylon at a
leisurely pace (Diod. 19.15.6). The battle at the Coprates river occurred at the time of “the rising of the Dog Star” (Diod. 19.17.3), which occurred, perhaps, on July 23
(Bickerman 1968: 144).
With regard to the ostraca, it has been claimed that the appearance of documents
dated Antigonus 3 (315/14) in Idumaea reflects both Antigonus’ physical presence
The End of a Dynasty
121
in the area and also the Idumaean adoption of Babylonian dating (Boiy 2007a:
204–5). However, the reference to the third year of Antigonus may simply reflect
the adoption of this Babylonian dating, and not that commander’s physical
presence in Idumaea. The calendar throughout the former Persian Empire, with
the notable exception of Egypt, had most often been based on the Babylonian
calendar (Bickerman 1968: 24). Since documents in Babylonia were being dated by
reference to Antigonus’ “third year,” but not his first or second, if the Idumaeans were following Babylonian chronological practice and not a system of their own,
then this dating may have been initiated pro forma at a slightly later time than in Babylon (the earliest date from July of 315), but reflecting the Babylonian year.
In both Babylon and Idumaea, the first surviving contemporary references to
Antigonus are to his third year, 315/14 (Boiy 2007b: 25), the year in the low chronology when Seleucus fled from his satrapy. With the departure of Seleucus,
Antigonus became the ruler of Babylonia (App. Syr. 53). This correlation between 315/14 and events would appear conclusive. In the high chronology, all of these
events would have to have taken place in 316/15 and their acknowledgment
delayed until the following year. If the Idumaean and Babylonian chronological
systems are connected then it was Antigonus’ defeat of Eumenes, the acquisition
of the upper satrapies, and the occupation of Babylon that influenced the dating
in both Babylon and Idumaea. Moreover, the Diadochs down to Antigonus’ arrival
in Upper Syria were not at war, so dating by the new and former “general in Asia”
would not have been seen by the Idumaeans as a hostile act with respect to the