ALEXANDER THE GREAT FAILURE
This page intentionally left blank
Alexander the Great Failure
The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire
John D. Grainger
Hambledon Continuum is an imprint of Continuum Books
Continuum UK, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
Continuum US, 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
Copyright © John D. Grainger 2007
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission from the publishers.
First published 2007
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978 1 84725 188 6
Typeset by Pindar New Zealand (Egan Reid), Auckland, New Zealand
Contents
List of maps
vii
List of genealogies
vii
List of abbreviations
viii
Introduction xvii
1 Macedon 370–359 bc: a failing state
1
World view I: 360 bc
17
2 The security of Macedon, 359–354 bc 23
3 The defence of the kingdom, 354–346 bc 33
4 Cold war, 346–340 bc 47
5 The conquest of Greece, 340–334 bc
59
6 The great campaign, 334–325 bc 75
7 The united empire, 325–319 bc 87
World view II: 319 bc
99
8 Antigonos the One-Eyed, 319–311 bc 103
9 The new king, 311–306 bc
115
10 Antigonos’ failure, 306–298 bc
127
11 New kings for Macedon, 298–291 bc
137
12 King Demetrios and his enemies, 291–285 bc 147
13 The last chance for the empire, 285–281 bc 157
14 New kings, and disaster, 281–277 bc 165
15 The new world, 277–272 bc 175
World view III: 272 bc 185
Conclusion
189
Notes
195
Bibliography
217
Index
227
Maps
The growth of Macedon, 359–334 bc ix
The strategic crisis, 331 bc
x
Alexander’s empire
xi
The campaign against Antigonos, 302–301 bc xii
Successor kingdoms of Alexander’s empire, 272 bc xiii
Genealogies
The Argead kings of Macedon
xiv
The family of Antipater
xv
The house of Antigonos
xvi
Abbreviations
Austin M.M.
Austin,
The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the
Roman Conquest, Cambridge 1981
BCH
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique
CAH
Cambridge Ancient History
CQ Classical
Quarterly
FGrH
P. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Berlin,
from 1923
IG Inscriptiones
Graecae
JHS
Journal of Hellenic Studies
Macedonia
N. G. L. Hammond et al. , A History of Macedonia, Oxford
1972–1978
OGIS
W. Dittenberger, (ed.) Orientis Graeci Inscriptones Selectae,
Leipzig, 1903–1905
REA
Revue des Etudes Anciennes
SVA
Die Staatsvertage des Altertums, vol. 2 ed. H. Bengtson, vol. 3
by H. H. Schmitt, Munich 1962 and 1969
Tod, GHI
M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford
1948
The growth of Macedon, 359–334 bc
Pelagonia
Thrace
Byzantion
Perinthos
Lynkos
Philippi
Pella
Amphipolis
MAPS
Orestis
Chalkidike
Epiros
Elimaia
Thessaly
Pherai
Lesbos
Pergamon
Ambrakia
Sardis
Aitolia
Macedon in 359 BC
Chios
Thebes
Conquests of Philip II
Ephesos
Athens
Samos
Corinth
In process of conquest in 336 BC
Miletos
League of Corinth
Sparta
Greek cities conquered by Alexander, 334 BC
Rhodes
ix
The strategic crisis, 331 bc
x
Thrace
Paphagonia
Bithynia
Pontos
GranikosX
Halys River
Halys River
Euphrates River
Phrygia
Lydia
Persians
Kappadokia
Sardis
from Issos
Caria
Halikarnassos
MAPS
X
Issos Dareios
Kilikia
to Issos
Persian Fleet
Euphrates River
Syria
Persian Fleet
Cyprus
Alexander’s route to Tyre, 333–331
X Battles and sieges
Local attacks
Persian armies after Issos
X Tyre
Antiochos
(Siege)
Halys River
from Issos
} Suggested new western
Euphrates River
boundaries of Persian Empire
Samaria
(Governor
assassinated)
X Gaza
(Siege)
Egypt
Alexander’s empire
Black Sea
Pella
Caspian Sea
Alexandria-
Macedon
Eschate
X Granikos
Lydia
S
Issos
Baktra
X
Syria
Baktria
XGaugamela
Media
Mediterranean Sea
Ekratana
Hyphasis
Tyre
MAPS
S
Arachosia
Alexandria
Babylon
S Gaza
Alexandria-
Kandahar
Egypt
Persepolis
Red Sea
Persian Gulf
Arabian Sea
Alexander’s route
Alexander’s new cities
xi
X
Battles
Outer boundary
S
Sieges
Greek autonomous states
The campaign against Antigonos, 302–301 bc
xii
Prepelaos
Lysimachos
Herakleia
Halys River
X
Lysimachos
X Desmetrios
Halys River
Euphrates River
Pergamon
Antigonos
X
Sardis
Ipsos
Seleukos
Koroupedion
Ephesos
Antigonos
Demetrios
MAPS
Raid to
Rhodes
Antigoneia
Babylon
Invasions
Cyprus
Antigonos’ moves
X Fortified camps
Tyre
Antigonos’ boundary
Ptolemy
Egypt
Successor kingdoms of Alexander’s empire, 272 bc
Thrace
Black Sea
Bithynia Herakleia
Macedon
Caspian Sea
Galatia
Kappadokia
Armenia
Baktria
MAPS
Atropatene
Mediterranean Sea
S E L E U K I D K I N G D O M
MAURYAN
EMPIRE
PTOLEMAL
KINGDOM
Persian Gulf
Red Sea
Arabian Sea
Northern boundary of Akhaimenid Empire
xiii
G E N E A L O G I E S
xiv
THE ARGEAD KINGS OF MACEDON
ALEXANDER I
c. 497/6– c. 454
Philip
Alketas
PERDIKKAS II
Menelaos
Amyntas
c. 454–413
AEROPOS
ARCHELAOS
AMYNTAS II
Arrhidaios
394
413–399
393
PAUSANIAS III
ORESTES
ARGAIOS
Pausanias
PTOLEMY
AMYNTAS
393
399–396
393–391
of Aloros
393
(Claimants 359)
368–365
391–370
ALEXANDER II
PERDIKKAS III
PHILIP II
370–368
365–359
359–336
ALEXANDER III
PHILIP III
336–323
323–317
ALEXANDER IV
323– c. 310
G E N E A L O G I E S
xv
Antipater
Macedonian regent
334–319
Kassander
Antigone
Phila
Nikaia
Eurydike
316–297
=
=
=
=
King 306
?
(1) Krateros
(1) Perdikkas
Ptolemy I
= Thessalonike
(2) Demetrios
(2) Lysimachos
Philip IV
Antipater
Alexander V
Berenike = (1) Philip (2) Ptolemy I
Ptolemy
297
297–294
297–294
Keraunos
Magas
Ptolemy II
281–279
Dates are those of kings of Macedon.
Note that Antipater the regent had many other children.
G E N E A L O G I E S
xvi
THE HOUSE OF ANTIGONOS
Philip
Antigonos
?
319–301
King 306
Demetrios
Philip
Polemaios
Telesphoros
306–285
Antigonos II
Stratonike
Gonatas
=
285–239
(1) Seleukos I
= Phila
(2) Antiochos I
Kings of Macedon
Seleukid kings
Introduction
For almost 100 years, between 360 and 270 bc, Macedon was one of the world’s
most dynamic states. Under the leadership of King Philip II its strength was
exerted so as to dominate its Balkan and Greek neighbours. Under his son
Alexander III that strength was projected eastwards as far as India. This is a fairly familiar story, especially that of Alexander, whose achievements are still astonishing over 2,000 years later. Though not intentionally so, the work of Philip was fundamental to that of Alexander; the two have to be considered together.
The number of biographies of Alexander is by now enormous, and new
versions appear regularly.1 This is due to the fascination the man’s life evokes; it is also the result of the search for a new angle, a new apparent explanation for his life, or for his death; the search has extended itself at times into areas of nonsense.
Alexander’s early death is all too often the point at which the story ends, by way of a variety of themes of conquering, drunkenness, disease, assassination
and conspiracy. By virtue of the fact that fi ve continuous accounts of his reign have survived, he is one of the few people of the ancient world for whom a
biography can be written; 2 but it has always seemed to me that, while biographies of Alexander are invariably interesting and entertaining – the conquest of the world could hardly be otherwise – it is only part of the story. Rather as the Iliad, one of Alexander’s standard references for behaviour, begins in medias res with regard to the Trojan War as a whole, and never reveals the result of that war, so a life of Alexander which skips over his father’s work and pays no attention to the events which followed his own death neither accounts for his success in a proper way nor shows what he actually accomplished.
The fundamental facts of his life are that he was the son of Philip and was a
Macedonian. It follows that these two elements need to be considered in some
detail. The work of Philip in extending and developing the kingdom of the
Macedonians was the foundation for Alexander’s career of conquest, but Philip’s work had its limitations, and Alexander was faced with similar limitations in the last year of his life. Alexander died in the midst of two projects: fi rst, to establish a government for his empire, for which Philip’s system of rule proved to be
inadequate; and secondly, to go on conquering other places, for which Philip’s army had proved to be more than suffi cient. The effects of Alexander’s early death
A L E X A N D E R T H E G R E AT F A I L U R E
xviii
therefore need to be considered in those contexts. A mere biography can never
do that: it is necessary to look at where he came from, and what happened as a result of his extraordinary life.
So this book aims to discuss how Alexander’s empire originated. This requires
a consideration of the kingdom of Macedon, and Philip’s work there. Then I
aim to examine how it was that his empire failed. For it is this which is the most notable result of Alexander’s life and work: for all his military prowess, he was one of the world’s great failures – and that failure spelt misery and death for countless thousands of people. Not only that, but he brought that failure on
himself. His arrogance was largely responsible for his own early death; and he was also responsible for the ultimate failure of his imperial enterprise; for he was king of a society where the king was absolutely central to the well-being of the society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded,
something which had happened more or less every generation for two centuries
before him, and happened when he died, and again afterwards. For the good of
his people, Alexander need
ed an adult successor, and he both refused to provide one, and killed off any man who could be seen as one. This was irresponsibility of the most introverted sort, and the consequence was 50 years of warfare after his death, and the destruction of his empire. In the end it brought invasion and destruction also to his inherited kingdom.
This is what I try to explain here. The subject, then, is the construction and destruction of Alexander’s empire. It is not a book in which a detailed exami nation of the source material is made, nor is it one in which a ‘dialogue’ is conducted with other historians’ opinions. Both of these procedures are worth doing, and have been done frequently, but all too often they become ends in themselves,
inconclusively, and obscuring the subject.
The book covers about a century of time. This period has been subdivided,
not so much according to the deaths of kings but more as a way of emphasizing
signifi cant developments, particularly in the history of the empire. The deaths of both Philip and Alexander are therefore noted within chapters rather than as end points or punctuations.
A. J. Toynbee once wrote two amusing essays in which he imagined what would
have happened if Philip or Alexander had lived on. 3 He brought out one fact which is too often ignored: Alexander’s contemporaries – Ptolemy, Lysimachos,
Seleukos – lived into their eighties, as did Philip’s contemporaries, Antipater and Antigonos. Both kings, that is, died young and untimely. The century I am
studying here therefore begins just before Alexander’s birth, and ends only a
few years after the deaths of his contemporaries. There were people who may
have lived through the whole of that time; it is a period only a little longer than a single lifetime.
There was also a wider consequence. As the empire he had constructed
I N T R O D U C T I O N
xix
– consisting of Macedon, Greece, the Persian Empire and the Indus Valley –
collapsed in on itself, so at the same time there grew in other countries other powers of an equal strength, partly as a result of the threat posed by Alexander’s empire even in its disarray. In India, a new empire was built, supposedly in
imitation of Alexander’s; in Italy, the Roman Republic united Italy partly as a reaction to attacks from Greece. Both of these new states proved able to resist attacks by Alexander’s successors. Further off, another empire, in China, was in course of construction, a development which is wholly independent of the events in the Middle East. It is not possible in the compass of a single volume to look at these contemporary developments in proper detail, but I have inserted three chapters at intervals to note them. Too often, the histories of these lands are taken in complete isolation from one another.
This page intentionally left blank
1
Macedon 370–359 bc: a failing state
In the decade between the death of King Amyntas III in 370 bc and that of
Perdikkas III in 359, four men succeeded to the Macedonian kingship, three of
whom soon died: so from 370 to 359 fi ve separate kings reigned; and by 359,
three other men were seen as possible kings and were fi ghting to seize the throne, while three foreign enemies were invading or preparing to invade the kingdom.