government under the king.6 Prior to the reigns of Alexander and his father Philip, the Macedonian king ruled through these individuals. They were mostly members
of the powerful landed Macedonian aristocracy, although some were from differ-
ent lands. In the non-bureaucratic state that had been Macedonia, they filled the offices of government under the king. They acted as regional officials, and served as ambassadors, advisors, and military commanders when called upon to perform
these duties. Their relationship to the king was not institutional, but rather
14
Alexander’s Heirs
personal, on the model of warrior-class Homeric society. As the king’s compan-
ions they enjoyed a social bond, hunting, drinking, and fighting alongside their
king. Indeed, prior to Philip II they were the principal arm of the Macedonian
military, the cavalry. On the death of a monarch these notables, referred to by our Roman source Curtius as the principes, the leaders (Arrian Succ. 1a.2 cal s them megistoi, the great ones), would through their support choose a new king from the available members of the royal family. At some point there might be a formal
coronation where the new ruler would be presented to his people, most likely
the army, for acclamation. This acclamation was a mere formality. The evidence,
however, suggests that there was no formal requirement of a coronation ceremony
or even of an informal meeting of the so-called Macedonian aristocratic leader-
ship, these Curtian principes, but rather a far more amorphous process in which powerful personalities dominated. As noted in the Introduction, there was no
assembly of Macedonians who chose the Macedonian monarch. The king was for
all intents and purposes an absolute autocrat, whose rule was tempered only by the traditional informality of the relationship between king and subjects.
In this particular succession, virtual y all of the prominent hetairoi were in Babylon. The only exceptions, though notable ones, were Antipater, Alexander’s
regent in Macedonia, and Craterus, who was on his way to replace Antipater
bringing home roughly 10,000 veterans of long service in Asia (Arr. Anab. 7.12.4; Just. 12.12.9). In this circumstance the somaphylaces (seven official royal bodyguards, the most elite of the hetairoi) called a meeting to be held in the palace of the chief philoi, friends (another term used by our sources for those who are essential y hetairoi), and the other leaders of the army (Curt. 10.6.1). The soldiers, who, while Alexander yet lived, had forced their way into the southern palace of
Nebuchadrezzar in Babylon (Oates 1986: 150–1) to see their dying king for the
last time (Plut. Alex. 76.8; Arr. Anab. 7.26.1; Just. 12.15.1–4; Curt. 10.5.1), now assembled outside the throne room in the large, 60 × 55-meter, courtyard, awaiting news of the decision of their leaders (“desiring to know to whom Alexander’s
empire would be given” (Curt. 10.6.1).7 Access to the discussion going on within
was supposed to be limited to those summoned by name (Curt. 10.6.2). However,
the palace’s succession of three courtyards leading to the throne room were all
filled with soldiers, and, as a result, many of those summoned could not because
of the crowds secure passage to the place of meeting (Curt. 10.6.1–2).
The soldiers’ anxiety was well placed. Not only was there a dearth of possible
candidates for the throne, but among the principes there was no clear agreement on how to proceed. Alexander’s death just ten days after falling ill had apparently caught all by surprise. The shock and the traditional y amorphous Macedonian
selection process, when added to the unique circumstances of this particular
succession, made a chaotic situation almost inevitable. Perdiccas, Alexander’s
chiliarch or second-in-command,8 who is initial y found in charge of the proceed-
ings, was in favor of awaiting the birth of Roxane’s unborn child (Curt. 10.6.4–9; Just. 13.2.5). Little thought was apparently given to the possibility that the child might not be male, perhaps because the infant would be male either natural y or
The Death of a Conqueror
15
by subterfuge (cf. Curt. 10.6.21). Even this eventuality, if approved, raised concerns. Who would be regent and guardian for the infant? There is little doubt that Perdiccas saw himself in this role. It is also very possible that Perdiccas desired to be king in his own right (cf. Curt. 10.6.16–19), but likely proclaiming that he
would only serve as an interim monarch, ostensibly awaiting the coming of age of
the Conqueror’s son. Such a situation would secure the continuation of order and
still point toward an eventual Argead successor, while giving Perdiccas’ ambitions the cover of appearing to be serving the needs of the state and remaining loyal
to the royal Argead family. When his position was secure, the young man could
be set aside and Perdiccas would rule as the founder of a new royal line. This supposition would make sense of all of the surviving evidence surrounding Perdiccas
and his actions during and after the deliberations in Babylon. However, at one
point the chiliarch was offered the crown, and while there was initial support from those assembled, he hesitated to accept the offer (Curt. 10.6.18–19). This hesitation may have resulted from Perdiccas’ fear that later he might be seen as a usurper if the Argead lineage were bypassed. Curtius (10.6.18) proclaims that, while
Perdiccas desired the position, his indecision resulted from a sense that such
action was improper or shameful. Later, Perdiccas approved the murder of Stateira, one of Alexander’s Persian wives and the daughter of Darius III (Plut. Alex. 77.6).9
There is even a report that it was Alexander’s wish that Perdiccas marry Roxane
( LM 118; cf. Heckel 1988: 26). This last is associated by the Liber de Morte with the well-attested giving to Perdiccas by Alexander of his seal ring ( LM 112), by which act Alexander likely was not attempting to make Perdiccas his successor, but was
simply attempting to ensure the continuation of official state functions and the
oversight of the succession (Rathmann 2005b: 26). No other source mentions
the proposed marriage in any context (cf. Diod. 17.117.3; 18.2.4; Curt. 10.5.4;
Just. 12.15.12). Such a marriage might have been contemplated, but the general
hostility of the Macedonian soldiers to all things Persian would have made such a plan moot. This long-standing hostility towards Asians, and Persians in particular, which had come to dominate the relationship between Alexander and his
Macedonians, made Alexander’s sons far less desirable as even potential leaders,
and a marriage even to the wife of the Conqueror held few benefits. Others
apparently, including Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s longtime companions, saw
no viable candidates and wished to create a ruling council of those most often
summoned by the dead king to give him advice (Curt. 10.6.15).
The difficulties involving the succession were not insurmountable and probably
could have been resolved in conclave. However, before the principes could come to some agreement, the army intervened. These troops in Babylon were not the
old Macedonian levy tied solely to the traditions of Macedonia; it was the army
that had conquered the Persian Empire. It was now a force more professional than
national, with a highly developed esprit de corps (Anson 2004: 255–7; 1991: 230–47; 1980: 56–7). In the chaos attendant on Alexander’s death the soldiers, desirous
of information, burst into the meeting and showed a disinclination to leave (Curt.
10.6.1–3). In 326, many of these same troops on the Hyphasis river in what is
16
Alexander’s Heirs
&n
bsp; today Pakistan10 had failed to accede to Alexander’s desire for further advance in the east, and had even jeered at him later at Opis in 324.11 They would not now be intimidated by his lieutenants. All deliberations now had to be carried out before an audience possessed of a strong vested interest in the outcome. Disagreements
about the nature of the regency which were meant to be settled quietly behind
closed doors by hard bargaining now had to be played out before this very atten-
tive audience.
Perdiccas dramatical y placed the ring given to him by Alexander on the throne
and proposed to the assemblage that they await the birth of Roxane’s child (Curt.
10.6.4–5, 9; Just. 13.2.5). This proposal received little support (Curt. 10.6.16).
Nearchus, Alexander’s admiral, quickly suggested that Heracles, Alexander’s son
by Barsine, be given the throne. Nearchus was married to Heracles’ half-sister
(Arr. Anab. 7.4.6). The troops reacted vocal y and angrily to this suggestion (Curt.
10.6.12). They had not been pleased with what they perceived as Alexander’s
Persianization of the court (Arr. Anab. 7.8.1–2, 23.1; Plut. Alex. 71). Alexander included Persians in his personal entourage, began to adopt Persian dress, court
procedure, and advisors, and increasingly incorporated Asian units into his ever-
growing army (Carney 1996: 19–44; Anson 2004: 355–7; 2013b: 162–76). He had
married three eastern princesses, two of whom were Persian (Plut. Alex. 47.7–8; Diod. 17.107.6; Arr. Anab. 7.4 .4),12 and had overseen the mixed marriages of 10,000 Macedonian officers and soldiers and Asian women (Arr. Anab. 7.4.4–8).
After his victory at Gaugamela in 331, which, except for mopping up operations,
gave Alexander control of the Persian Empire, the king began to change the
campaign from one of vengeance against the Persians to one where the previously
hated Persians were to become comrades-in-arms (Anson 2013b: 153–79). Such
a transformation under any circumstances would have been difficult. When
combined with Alexander’s growing sense of his own importance, it became an
assault on the very traditions of Macedonia. All those living in his vast empire
were now to be the subjects of the self-proclaimed “King of Asia” (Plut. Alex. 34.1).
The long-standing Macedonian tradition of a personal relationship between ruler
and people would now become one of ruler and subjects (Anson 2013b: 22, 24–6,
163). In the summer of 327, Alexander even attempted to introduce into his court
ceremony the Persian practice of proskynesis (Arr. Anab. 4.9.9, 10.5–12.6; Curt.
8.5.5–24; Plut. Alex. 54.2–6), a form of submission which could involve a bowing or full prostration of the individual before a superior, in this particular case, the king (Hdts. 1.134.1; Frye 1972: 102–7). While the attempt was abandoned when
it met with opposition, it was a pointed reminder of the changing relationship
between the Macedonian king and his Macedonians. As Alexander began to
implement this new relationship, his Macedonian troops became increasingly
insubordinate and conspiracies arose against the king’s life.13 Under these circumstances the displeasure with a possible new king who was half-Asian was simply
a continuation of the Macedonian resistance to the policies of their dead king.
Given the vocal opposition to a half-Asian ruler, Ptolemy proposed that neither
a king nor a specific regent be appointed, but that Alexander’s old council be
The Death of a Conqueror
17
retained and that they make major decisions collectively (Curt. 10.6.15).14 As
noted, Ptolemy had probably favored a regency council for Roxane’s potential son
prior to the open meeting, but now seeing the reaction of the troops, especial y to Nearchus’ suggestion of Heracles as the new king, decided to forgo the regency
completely, declaring it would be disgraceful for Macedonians and Greeks to
be ruled by an Asian (Curt. 10.6.13–14). Aristonous, perhaps at the urging of
Perdiccas, now called for Perdiccas to be made king in his own right, since
Alexander had given him his ring before dying (Curt. 10.6.16–17). This suggestion received broad support, but Perdiccas hesitated to act and the moment was lost
(Curt. 10.6.18–20). Given that the monarchy had been held by the Argead clan
since mythical times, his hesitation is understandable.
Given the nature of Macedonian monarchy, while there may have been initial
support by the confused and apprehensive troops for Perdiccas to become king,
that support would likely have become fleeting given time for reflection. The
Roman historian Curtius (10.6.18), perhaps influenced by the feigned initial reluctance of Augustus and later Tiberius to accept power, states that Perdiccas coveted the prize but hoped his hesitancy would lead to an overwhelming demand that he
accept the role. When that was not forthcoming, he moved from the forefront and
remained quiet. Indeed, one of the battalion commanders, Meleager, the son of
Neoptolemus, spoke forceful y against such a proposition, proclaiming Perdiccas
to be unworthy of such a position and further stating that Roxane’s child was only a stalking horse for what would then become the de facto rule by Perdiccas as
regent (Curt. 10.6.20–1). Many of the rank-and-file supported Meleager (Curt.
(Curt. 10.6.16–18), and the meeting quickly degenerated “in sedition and discord”
(Curt. 10.7.1). In this emerging chaos a virtual y unknown individual proposed
that the crown be given to Arrhidaeus, who was the only adult Argead male; this
suggestion was soon taken up by the soldiers and by Meleager (Curt. 10.7.1–2).
While Curtius is our most detailed source, his description of events has been
called into serious question,15 with one commentator stating that his problems as a source are sufficient “almost to preclude belief in anything Curtius says about events after Alexander’s death, except items confirmed by another source”
(McKechnie 1999: 49). The major point of contention concerns the sequencing of
the events that led to the proclamation by the Macedonian infantry of Arrhidaeus
as king. Justin’s description is in a number of ways significantly different from that found in Curtius. Justin (13.2.1–4, 3.1–2) has the Macedonians meeting in three
separate groups: the leaders, the cavalry, and the infantry. The leaders made their
“unanimous” decisions in private (Just. 13.2.1–3), then gave out the word to
the army, who were divided in location according to whether they were horsemen
or foot soldiers (Just. 13.3.1). For Justin, Curtius’ principes were able to arrive at a decision with respect to the new monarch with no interference from the infantry.
In private, they had agreed to await the birth of Roxane’s child. If the child was male, then Perdiccas, Leonnatus, Craterus, and Antipater would be the infant’s
guardians (Just. 13.13–14). While the cavalry were in agreement with their leaders,
18
Alexander’s Heirs
the infantry were incensed that they had not been consulted and immediately
hailed Arrhidaeus as king (Just. 13.3.1–2). The principes now, in an attempt to win the infantry over to their decision, sent two Macedonian battalion commanders,
Attalus and Meleager, to them, but these individuals joined the infantry and
became their leaders (Just. 13.3.2). Attalus, Perdiccas’ brother-in-law, would
appear an unlikely candidate for this betrayal, espe
cial y since he is later found in Perdiccas’ good graces, but it has been suggested that the marriage came later as part of a successful attempt to regain his allegiance (Heckel 1992: 381–4; 2006: 63).
There are, however, additional improbable details in Justin,16 that might be
dismissed out of hand as confusions by the epitimator of his source, but part of
this basic outline of events also appears in the brief synopsis found in Diodorus (18.2.2–4), clearly indicating that there was a source tradition used by both
Pompeius Trogus and Diodorus. The latter, however, begins with the division
between the cavalry and infantry over the succession already in place, without
any explanation of what led to it. He then states that envoys, only specifying
Meleager by name, were sent from the cavalry to the infantry. Neither Arrian
( Succ. 1a.1–4; 1b.1), nor Plutarch ( Eum. 3.1–2), provides more than the briefest of outlines of these events. The basic scenario of events described in Justin is accepted by many scholars, who reject Curtius’ account as either “imaginative fiction”
(McKechnie 1999: 49–50), or “a confused pot pourri” (Bosworth 2002: 35–44).
However, Curtius’ account is more faithful to the specific historical context. The troops, while initial y having no expectation that they would select the next king, yet by the same token not willing to sit meekly by in some distant location while their futures were being decided, ultimately chose a king. The circumstances
described by Curtius, the crowded meeting, the division of opinion amongst the
principes, all led to an emboldening of the rank-and-file and the first true mutiny by the Macedonian army. Much like with mercenaries, many of whose attributes
were exhibited by this long-serving royal army, this crisis caused the troops to see to their own interests through democratic means (cf. Parke 1933: 119). Indeed, it was this very succession crisis that gave rise to the brief period of powerful army assemblies that emerged following Alexander’s death (see Errington 1978: 116–17;
Anson 1985: 307–8; 1991: 236–7). These were the result of the troops’ long service in Asia, the personal nature of that service in the period of both Alexander and
his Successors, and the uncertainties that arose in this new age. The Curtian