Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

[Xenophon]

I don't think this analogy applies, and rather falls into the category of 'special pleading'. Caesar was murdered by daggers - short thrusting weapons - concealed beneath clothing. In Justin's scenario Olympias is murdered by sword "blows" i.e. hacked to death. This would be so for several reasons. Firstly, the swords in question would have been the machaira/kopis or xiphos, both weapons weighted at the end and optimised for cutting/chopping blows rather than thrusts, and which were machete-like in use.

It is not "special pleading". As ever, it comes down to what is actually written. That you choose to see "blows" as indicating "hacking" is your view (dare I say it "special pleading"). Justin writes confoderent which the translator here has rendered as blows. Justin is speaking of sword inflicted wounds and the natural meaning of "to strike down by stabbing, to pierce, stab, transfix" is here indicated. Justin, translating from the Greek, also renders the weapon as a "gladius" which clearly it is not. Given that it was the relatives attacking the old matriarch, we aren't to know which sword this was.

Justin, a Roman writer, assumes 'gladius' which was primarily a thrusting/cutting sword, unlike Greek swords, hence his use of a word indicating stabbing. He would not be familiar with ancient Greek swords, or their form and usage. To rely on this in the circumstances would be unwise, to say the least.

The kopis was indeed a curved, single edged "chopping" sword and regularly identified with cavalry use (for swinging, downward blows) and might be compared to a machete . Whereas a xiphos might be used in this fashion, it was a double edged straight blade and generally not terribly long. A thrusting and stabbing action is suited to such though that does not rule out swinging.

This is inaccurate in a couple of respects. First, the 'Kopis' was not just a cavalry sword, for a shorter infantry version for use on foot was very popular at this time. The 'xiphos' was not a 'thrusting' sword at all, but a cutting sword, and optimised for cutting, as I said. There are thousands of illustrations of 'xiphoi' being used in the iconography, but you'll find few if any which depict thrusts as opposed to cuts.

What is continually passed over is the fact that regardless of a condemnation in Cassander's army assembly, Cassander wanted this execution done swiftly and out of public view. His actions and orders clearly demonstrate this. The relatives, attempting to curry favour and in a similar position to Cassander (not needing this done in full public view in the event of a backlash), succeed where a select regular army group did not. Justin's version, stripped of its counterpointing exaggeration, is most likely correct. Olympias was stabbed/pierced through like a pin cushion.

Whoah there ! Firstly, it is not certain she was executed with swords at all. Stoning is perhaps a more slightly favoured option. Second, even if she was executed with swords, they were most assuredly not 'stabbing' weapons, and in an attack by multiple assailants, the most common type of blow is invariably downward cuts ( with thrusts rare), whatever the type of sword. Death occurs from blows to the head, with associated "defensive wounds".

The probability that she was stabbed to death is highly unlikely. The probability that this occurred from multiple assailants who left no marks on the extant skeleton is so low that it can be precluded.

That said, I reiterate that no marks on the arm or skull would indicate that these were not attacked which might well be somewhat incongruous.

Not so much incongruous as unlikely in the extreme, to the point where we can rule out such a possibility.

I agree with Zebedee:

I think we're done here?

I don't believe anything further can usefully be said, unless someone has something new to add........

I believe Zebedee addressed that to Taphoi not to the thread at large. Nothing precludes you from also "being done here" with Taphoi but I fail to see why that, and your rules for participation, should apply to others posting on this thread or forum. We haven't even made five pages yet!

Five pages is ample, especially when all the salient matters have been addressed ! I am free to express that view, and I do not seek to impose any 'rules', still less apply them to anyone. Obviously you can post from now until doomsday if you wish.

However, we have reached a point where, despite the fact that neither you nor Agesilaos believe that the skeleton is or could be Olympias or that she went to Amphipolis, you are prepared to argue the contrary. 'Cognitive dissonance' and contradictory positions ? Mere argument for argument's sake?

[Paralus]

We are no closer to determining when Cassander headed south, whether before or after Olympias' execution.

I don't really know why for the clues are all within Diodorus' text. There is one overriding factor and that is Olympias' support within Macedonia. From this many other matters follow. Diodorus is clear that the old girl - despite her removal of some of Cassander's supporters - could still count on the support of many of the Macedonians. Thus Cassander sends the "many" deserters to "the various cities" to undermine this support throughout Macedonia resulting in only Pella and Amphipolis holding out (50.2). Even with these hold outs surrendered, Cassander is mistrusting of the Macedonians' loyalties (correctly as it turns out - see the soldiers sent to kill Olympias) and seeks to avoid responsibility for her death/murder. To this end he convenes an assembly where the accusers are the relatives dressed in mourning attire and at which she is not allowed to defend herself because of the very real danger of the Macedonians acquitting her. There follows three attempts to have her done away with - all out of the public eye - of which one is successful (the relatives). Finally, with the murder done, Cassander is still mistrusting of the Macedonians' loyalty: at 52.4 he wishes to do away with the royal family but imprisons them instead, for he wishes first to see how the Macedonians react to Olympias' death.

If Cassander mistrusted the loyalty of the Macedonians and what they might do after Olympias' death, it is hardly conceivable that he headed off on a major campaign in the south with the matriarch alive and well behind him in Macedonia.

There is more though. Although Diodorus 19.52 is largely a thematic excursus on Cassander's royal ambitions (and the actions that demonstrated them), there is a clear chronological pointer at 52.4:

Cassander had determined to do away with Alexander's son and the son's mother, Roxanê, so that there might be no successor to the kingdom; but for the present, since he wished to observe what the common people would say about the slaying of Olympias and since he had no news of Antigonus' success, he placed Roxanê and the child in custody, transferring them to the citadel of Amphipolis...

Earlier, we are told (from the royal family's viewpoint) that Aristonous did not surender (in part) due to the fact he was unaware of Eumenes' fate - help might yet come from the royal general. Here, Cassander does not murder Alexander IV and Roxane because he is uncertain how the Macedonians would react to Olympias' death and because he is unaware of Antigonos' victory over Eumenes. The reaction to Olympias' death is the reaction in the immediate aftermath of the act - not months later. It simply isn't conceivable that Eumenes' death and Antigonos' victory (late December / very early January) was not known in Macedonia before Cassander set off "as early as possible in the campaigning season" for what amounted a major campaign taking months including refounding Thebes. Especially with Olympias (and her royal family) alive and well in Macedonia in his rear. Olympias' murder followed close on the heels of her surrender and clearly before Cassander headed off to the Peloponnese for a major campaign.

This is inaccurate in a couple of respects. First, the 'Kopis' was not just a cavalry sword, for a shorter infantry version for use on foot was very popular at this time.

I did not say it was "just a cavalry sword".

Whoah there ! Firstly, it is not certain she was executed with swords at all. Stoning is perhaps a more slightly favoured option.

I actually said that Justin's account was "the most likely". It coheres with Diodorus and I hold to that view.

Five pages is ample, especially when all the salient matters have been addressed ! I am free to express that view, and I do not seek to impose any 'rules', still less apply them to anyone. Obviously you can post from now until doomsday if you wish.

Other than the strong implication that one should really only post if one has "something new". And yes, I've noted that five pages seems to be the recommended limit especially when you unilaterally deem a thread to have "reached its natural conclusion". I do wonder how such sanctimonious appearing lectures read to some who might otherwise post.

However, we have reached a point where, despite the fact that neither you nor Agesilaos believe that the skeleton is or could be Olympias or that she went to Amphipolis, you are prepared to argue the contrary. 'Cognitive dissonance' and contradictory positions ? Mere argument for argument's sake?

Not at all. Simply that, given the state of what remains of the skeleton, there has to be doubt over the manner in which it died. I do not believe it is Olympias.

[Taphoi]

In my article on "An Identity Crisis for the Amphipolis Tomb" first published on 25th January I discussed the feasible age range of Olympias in some detail in the light of the known facts. You can find the article on my page here https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and it was also published online in the Greek Reporter and on the Mediterraneo Antiguo website. I concluded that Olympias could have been as young as 53 at death or as old as her later sixties. Therefore there is nothing inconsistent in my allowing that either a woman in her fifties or sixties could be Olympias. Sixty is about the peak of the probability distribution.

Andrew, it would benefit the debate here at Pothos if you could quote from your online articles rather than just linking to them. That way people can respond directly to your posts rather than having to scan an article for the pertinent information and then copying it here as a quote (in order to answer). I was going to reply myself but the copy and paste function was quite screwed up and it would have been quite time consuming to fix the "paste'. I appreciate your consideration in this.

Very happy to oblige. It is just that it is quite chunky and suffers slightly from being taken out of context.

The key question now is whether the woman in her early sixties might be Olympias. In order to answer this question in is necessary to consider the complex question of Olympias’s age when she died in 316BC. Firstly, it should be noted that we have no direct or definite information regarding the year of Olympias’s birth. No surviving account from antiquity nor any known inscription provides any information on her exact age at death. Instead we are reliant on inferring a possible range for the year of the queen’s birth based on the known events from the earlier part of her life. There are three events of which we have some particular knowledge:
1. Betrothal to Philip of Macedon, when he and she were initiates of the Mysteries of the Great Gods on the Aegean island of Samothrace
2. Marriage to Philip
3. The birth of her son Alexander
Among these three events we only have an explicit date for the last. Plutarch states clearly that Alexander the Great was born on 20th July 356BC in the Julian calendar. This date is very likely to be exactly correct and it is certainly correct to within a few months. This has the effect of placing an extreme lower limit on Olympias’s age at death. It is highly unlikely that she was younger than thirteen at the time of Alexander’s birth, so she cannot have been younger than about fifty-three when she died. In all probability she was significantly older. Clearly we can also conclude that the marriage to Philip cannot have taken place later than 357BC, but again that is only a latest date. It is significantly possible that the marriage took place years earlier. Although Alexander is not known to have had any older siblings, it is possible either that Olympias was slow to conceive by Philip or that she had previous pregnancies that were victims of the very high rates of perinatal mortality that prevailed at the time. Although we have no date for the Samothrace betrothal, William Greenwalt (“Philip II and Olympias on Samothrace: A Clue to Macedonian Politics During the 360s” in Macedonian Legacies, ed. Timothy Howe and Jeanne Reames, pp79-106, 2008) has argued that Philip simply had no opportunity to attend the Mysteries of the Great Gods between his accession as king in about 360BC and 357BC and he also notes that Philip was a hostage at Thebes for some years until 365BC. Therefore he suggests that the betrothal took place some time in the approximate period 364-361BC. Plutarch writes that Philip actually fell in love with Olympias on Samothrace, which implies that she was at least in her early teens at the time of her betrothal.
Furthermore, I have suggested that the painting of a man and a woman wearing red belts either side of a sacrificial bull that was recently discovered in the Amphipolis tomb (Figure 2) probably depicts Philip and Olympias at the Mysteries on Samothrace (on the assumption that the tomb belongs to Olympias). The painting is poorly preserved, but the woman would appear to be at least in her later teens. Thus it would easily be possible on the available evidence for Philip to have become betrothed to Olympias as early as 364BC and for Olympias to have been in her late teens at the time. That would put her age at death in the middle sixties. Clearly, the woman from the Amphipolis tomb who died at 60+ years of age is an excellent fit for Olympias. No other Macedonian queen or member of the Royal Family is known who died in the last quarter of the 4th century BC at the age of 60+ (Roxane is excluded, since she was murdered in her thirties and Cleopatra, the daughter of Olympias is excluded, since she was killed in her forties). Among all the many candidates suggested for the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb prior to the announcement of the results from the bone analyses, Olympias is the only female who may have died in her early sixties.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Here is Gabriel pp 60-61

‘The system of military law and punishment in the army of Alexander the Great lacked any written codification that applied equally to all. Instead, the customs and traditions that regulated Macedonian tribal society continued unchanged in the Imperial armies, including the unrestricted prerogative of the king to inflict harsh penalties for minor offenses. Alexander once had one of his officers flogged because he speared a wild boar that alexander himself wanted to hunt 29. The traditional Macedonian method of execution, stoning was employed by Alexander, as were torture by fire and hanging 30. In many cases, however, Alexander provided the accused with a hearing by an assembly of officers, also a Macedonian tradition. In one case Alexander suspended the rule that the accused male family members also be subject to the same penalty as the accused if he were found guilty. When Cleander and his men had been found guilty by the officers’ assembly on charges of committing atrocities, Alexander sentenced them to death along with 600 of Cleander’s troops responsible for carrying out his barbarous orders 31 in what may have been a case of finding that soldiers have a responsibility not to execute illegal orders . The unwritten tribal law based in custom and tradition carried out by the tribal chief that characterized Alexander’s system of military discipline and punishment was Homeric in content and practice and was the same system found among the Achaean Greeks as portrayed in the Iliad 1,000 years earlier.’
Notes
29 Quintus Curtius Rufus The History of Alexander (New York: Penguin Books 1984), 190 [VIII 6 vii] Hermolaos
30 Ibid 142 [VI 11 x] Philotas
31 Ibid 238 [X 1 i-ix] Kleandros

This is generally supposition, the quality of the scholarship is amply demonstrated by referencing the ancient text with the page number of one edition of the translation (I have added the correct references) and lo and behold a general rule from one instance and it is Philotas for the stoning while Arrian has him shot by javelins, torture by fire is not mentioned on the cited page but the following one along with beating and instruments of torture (VI 11 xvi). A Page becomes an officer, presumably enabled to sit in on these officers’ assemblies Gabriel has conjured out of thin air. Since, however he can claim that there was no written code (well none has been found but this is ‘positivist fallacy’)yet Kleandros commits’ illegal acts’ and ‘atrocities’, an artefact of Yardley’s translation of ‘crimen’, which is only an ‘accusation’ in this context. The notion of ‘atrocities’ in the time of AtG is quite whimsical, Thebes levelled and the population sold into slavery, four thousand Tyrians crucified, Persian prisoners butchered before approaching Persepolis, India was a genocidal away day, the concept does not fit (these acts were not seen as deleterious to Alexander’s reputation at the time) Arrian only has Kleandros, Sitalkes and Herakon executed (method unspecified VI 27).

[amyntoros]

... There are three events of which we have some particular knowledge:
1. Betrothal to Philip of Macedon, when he and she were initiates of the Mysteries of the Great Gods on the Aegean island of Samothrace
2. Marriage to Philip
3. The birth of her son Alexander
Among these three events we only have an explicit date for the last. Plutarch states clearly that Alexander the Great was born on 20th July 356BC in the Julian calendar. This date is very likely to be exactly correct and it is certainly correct to within a few months. This has the effect of placing an extreme lower limit on Olympias’s age at death. It is highly unlikely that she was younger than thirteen at the time of Alexander’s birth, so she cannot have been younger than about fifty-three when she died. In all probability she was significantly older. Clearly we can also conclude that the marriage to Philip cannot have taken place later than 357BC, but again that is only a latest date. It is significantly possible that the marriage took place years earlier. Although Alexander is not known to have had any older siblings, it is possible either that Olympias was slow to conceive by Philip or that she had previous pregnancies that were victims of the very high rates of perinatal mortality that prevailed at the time. Although we have no date for the Samothrace betrothal, William Greenwalt (“Philip II and Olympias on Samothrace: A Clue to Macedonian Politics During the 360s” in Macedonian Legacies, ed. Timothy Howe and Jeanne Reames, pp79-106, 2008) has argued that Philip simply had no opportunity to attend the Mysteries of the Great Gods between his accession as king in about 360BC and 357BC and he also notes that Philip was a hostage at Thebes for some years until 365BC. Therefore he suggests that the betrothal took place some time in the approximate period 364-361BC. Plutarch writes that Philip actually fell in love with Olympias on Samothrace, which implies that she was at least in her early teens at the time of her betrothal.

The copying of the relevant info from your online article is much appreciated, Andrew. The comment I previously wished to make is that I have doubts about an earlier engagement. Even if one is inclined to believe (as with Alexander) that Olympias and Philip was a love match, it is extremely doubtful that there was a l-o-n-g gap between engagement and marriage given everything we know about Greek marriages during this period. And then there's the political factor wherein the marriage union cemented the positive relationship between two factions. Again, I doubt that an "engagement" would have sufficed - it's the marriage itself and the subsequent removal of the bride to the groom's territory which mattered. On the other hand, I agree that had the marriage been earlier then Olympias could have given birth to children before Alexander - children who either died at childbirth or a little later. Those who recorded the life of Alexander would not have been at all concerned with stillborn siblings or those who died before his birth. Such unfortunates have no impact on history and so are not recorded.

Now, I've gone on record as not believing the Kastas tomb belongs to Olympias and I still feel that way, but I'm willing to admit that not all your points should be dismissed out of hand.

Best Regards,

[Paralus]

Had the execution been carried out by the soldiers first sent, then I would agree with you that sword might be considered more likely, but the actual deed, upon which our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously, was most probably performed by the outraged relatives of Cassander's supporters murdered by Olympias ( some 100 or so victims). Such a mob would be unlikely to be armed with swords, even if many of them were soldiers or ex-soldiers, because they were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution.

Which is to put a spin on the source material that is not justified. Diodorus 19.51.5; Just. 14.6.10:

They, accordingly, broke into the royal house, but when they beheld Olympias, overawed by her exalted rank, they withdrew with their task unfulfilled. But the relatives of her victims, wishing to curry favour with Cassander as well as to avenge their dead, murdered the queen, who uttered no ignoble or womanish plea.

The executioners, on beholding her, struck with the recollection of her former royal dignity, and with the names of so many of their kings, that occurred to their memory in connection with her, stood still, 11 until others were sent by Cassander to despatch her;

Now, both sources are summarising and Diodorus, as evidenced by his excursus on Cassander's ambitions, rather sharply. The process usually results in matters left out rather than added. Justin and Diodorus report essentially the same thing: soldiers/executioners balked at murdering the matriarch and the aggrieved relatives accomplished the task. Diodorus records a motive aside from revenge which Justin doesn't bother with and Justin notes that the relatives did so with Cassander's assent. Neither additional piece of information is out of place and neither should be dismissed; they are, in fact, complimentary. It is not conceivable that the murder was carried out without Cassander's consent - his concern for the reaction and Olympias' support among the Macedonians has been addressed. What is nowhere apparent in our sources is Xenophon's colour or spin: "our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously" and "they [the relatives] were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution". The relatives, acting under Cassander's fiat, carried out the execution and were clearly prepared to do so.

Justin's somewhat lurid version is likely to be less accurate, not least because public execution, as opposed to military execution, in Macedon was usually by stoning, but the trauma would be similar in death by hacking.]

Gabriel has been the only cited evidence for stoning being the usual method of public execution. His authority would seem only to be Curtius' view that Philotas was stoned - in a "military" execution. Gabriel conveniently leaves out Arrian's view that Philiotas was speared. It would be interesting to see on just what grounds Arrian is not even considered as part of all of the evidence ("3. Be careful to consider contrary evidence as objectively as you can, don't just merely 'explain it away', ignore it, or distort it"). In any case, as I've been at pains to point out, this was not a public execution as our source evidence clearly demonstrates.

Again, Justin's version, stripped of the counterpointing literary 'dramatics', is the most likely version and I don't believe anything further can usefully be said on the matter.

[agesilaos]

The status of stoning as the traditional method of execution is well attested in one source and only in one episode within that source, namely Curtius Rufus’ account of the fall of Philotas. Outside of that Arrian mentions (IV 14) that some writers, ie. not Aristoboulos or Ptolemy, reported that Hermolaos and his co-conspirators were stoned Curtius says they were tortured to death (VIII 8 xx). Plutarch , Alex. 55 iv cites a letter of Alexander’s to Antipatros saying that the Pages were stoned; this is more likely evidence that the forger used the same sources Arrian notes, than a genuine piece of evidence.

Then there is Pausanias IX 7 ii, ‘Olympias he threw to the exasperated Macedonians to be stoned.’ Quite a different context from that in Diodoros where Kassandros is worried that the Macedonians will favour her and he hardly ‘threw‘ her to the crowd.

The problem with accepting the statement in Curtius that this was the traditional manner of execution is that Arrian, based on Macedonian sources, says Philotas was shot with javelins yet there is no conceivable reason why they would not have had him stoned were that both how he died and traditional. So there is, in fact little evidence for stoning as a Macedonian punishment and absolutely none for a civil/military division.

It remains possible that Olympias was stoned, despite doubts over Pausanias’ source, but she may equally well have been stabbed (since she was sensible enough to cover her feet before dying massive cranial damage can be ruled out, unless one wants to reject that detail); she may have been strangled, likely it happened behind the closed doors of the house where she was held (both Eurydike/Adea and Kleopatra/Eurydike were hanged) our sources have simply chosen the more appealing fiction.

[Xenophon]

Amyntoros wrote:

The copying of the relevant info from your online article is much appreciated, Andrew. The comment I previously wished to make is that I have doubts about an earlier engagement. Even if one is inclined to believe (as with Alexander) that Olympias and Philip was a love match, it is extremely doubtful that there was a l-o-n-g gap between engagement and marriage given everything we know about Greek marriages during this period. And then there's the political factor wherein the marriage union cemented the positive relationship between two factions. Again, I doubt that an "engagement" would have sufficed - it's the marriage itself and the subsequent removal of the bride to the groom's territory which mattered. On the other hand, I agree that had the marriage been earlier then Olympias could have given birth to children before Alexander - children who either died at childbirth or a little later. Those who recorded the life of Alexander would not have been at all concerned with stillborn siblings or those who died before his birth. Such unfortunates have no impact on history and so are not recorded.

Now, I've gone on record as not believing the Kastas tomb belongs to Olympias and I still feel that way, but I'm willing to admit that not all your points should be dismissed out of hand.

The first point to make is that Andrew in all his previous references to Olympias' age at death postulated, like most scholars, that she died in her mid-fifties. He makes this argument for her being older only AFTER the evidence that the Kasta female skeleton was in her mid-sixties emerged.A bad case of changing the premises to distort the actual evidence.

As Amyntoros points out, in order to make Olympias some ten years older a number of unlikely assumptions must be made. I largely agree with her, save that the fact is that we have NO evidence that Alexander was anything other than Olympias' first child. Whilst it is a possibility that there were other earlier siblings, that can only be an assumption at best.

Amyntoros, can you be specific about which of Andrew's premises you believe have some merit ?

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Here is Gabriel pp 60-61

In their general 'Xenophobia' and personal malice, and zeal to argue with anything and everything I might post, Agesilaos and Paralus claim that I 'cite' Richard Gabriel as the evidence for stoning being a common form of execution in Macedonia. That is easily disposed of - I did not. I merely mentioned him as an example of one of many modern writers who accept this - his name just happened to pop into my head. I then went on to refer to source evidence regarding this practice, and did not go into detail because I thought that this fact was uncontroversial.

As to the rest of your comments on Gabriel and his scholarship etc, I would generally agree. But he is no worse than many other modern writers.

As to executions, as I said previously, a quick survey of a dozen or so Macedonian executions in our source materials shows that in the majority of cases, the means is not specified. Wherever it is, stoning is ALWAYS referred to, even when alternate means are also mentioned (4 or 5 cases). Spearing is given as an alternative in the cases of Philotas and Alexander of Lyncestis. Spearing is always carried out by soldiers, as one would expect ( the general population did not go about armed), hence is a military form of execution.

One might suspect from this that in general, means of execution was not spelled out, and that writers such as Justin were 'filling in' the lurid details from what they knew and considered credible for the benefit of their readers. Clearly stoning was evidently a popular choice and common enough to be credible. It should be pointed out that stoning was a common punishment in the Greek 'oikoumene' and is referred to frequently from the earliest archaic times in myths, to the literature from Herodotus onward. It was also used in human sacrifices as well as criminal cases. Some believe the Greeks invented it, but given its universal application throughout the world as the most common form of execution both in the past and to the present day, this cannot be true ( compare for example contemporary Jewish literature, which also frequently refers to stoning.)To argue that Macedon was somehow an exception to this universal practice is illogical, and extreme 'special pleading'.

Then there is Pausanias IX 7 ii, ‘Olympias he threw to the exasperated Macedonians to be stoned.’ Quite a different context from that in Diodoros where Kassandros is worried that the Macedonians will favour her and he hardly ‘threw‘ her to the crowd.

Cassander's concern was that if allowed to defend herself, and doubtless make much of being the revered Alexander's mother, she might escape a death sentence. Once convicted and sentenced, she was doomed. Pausanias does not offer a narrative with fictional details, instead giving us just the broad facts. Because of this his brief account may well be more reliable than Justin's clearly fictional account. Cassander did indeed give her up to the vengeful relatives who might broadly be called 'The Macedonians', rather than send reliable guards, for example, once the ordinary soldiery balked at the task because of their traditional reverence for the Royal Family, which will also have been tinged with superstition. That does not mean they sympathised with her, or would have supported her however.They were still unquestionably loyal to Cassander.

The details are perhaps unknowable, but all our sources agree that Olympias met her end violently at the hands of a mob. That could not have been accomplished by whatever means without significant skeletal damage.

To make a case for the skeleton possibly being Olympias, you are reduced to rejecting the sources altogether and describing them as "fiction"( always a fraught proposition) and postulating strangulation! The probability of that is so low as to be virtually zero in practical terms.

Consequently, on this ground alone ( let alone other evidence) the skeleton cannot realistically be that of Olympias - as you and Paralus agree, so why argue what can only be a remote hypothetical possibility ?

[amyntoros]

Amyntoros wrote:
Now, I've gone on record as not believing the Kastas tomb belongs to Olympias and I still feel that way, but I'm willing to admit that not all your points should be dismissed out of hand.

Amyntoros, can you be specific about which of Andrew's premises you believe have some merit ?

Well, my actual words were "not ... dismissed out of hand". That's "out of hand" as in "refused completely without thinking about it or discussing it." Here's a situation where thinking about it brings me to the conclusion that, yes, Olympias could have been older - and therefore, in this instance, Andrew's premise has some merit. Now I get the point that as each new piece of evidence was discovered, Andrew adapted and added to his original theory. And yes, it is a dangerous ploy which is considered as a backwards way of doing things - coming up with a theory and then looking/searching/manipulating(?) evidence to fit the theory. This approach isn't respected in the academic world although Andrew would hardly be the first person to do this or it wouldn't be up for discussion. However, my attitude to debate on Andrew's theory is again to not dismiss everything out of hand but to at least think about each addition and adaption. His assumptions may be unlikely and his methodology is certainly frowned upon but I'd rather see his points discussed and argued in an open forum than ignored completely (or accepted completely as has been done in Greece by some publications). This is where I think Pothos serves its purpose and I'm appreciative of all our members and their attention to history and to detail.

The first point to make is that Andrew in all his previous references to Olympias' age at death postulated, like most scholars, that she died in her mid-fifties. He makes this argument for her being older only AFTER the evidence that the Kasta female skeleton was in her mid-sixties emerged.A bad case of changing the premises to distort the actual evidence.

Point taken about the shift in age, and it is noted than when faced with the change in age Andrew had to reconsider his earlier postulations. But it should be noted that in all fairness (and I do like to be fair) that archaeological discoveries, when verified, can change or add to historical knowledge. Yes, Andrew is taking a frowned-upon approach that the skeleton IS Olympias and is therefore examining each new piece of evidence to see how it may fit his theory. So here his next step was to examine historical knowledge and see if it were possible despite the postulation of himself and most scholars, that she could have been older. And, getting back to my earlier post, I agree that if Olympias had lost previous infants then, yes, she might have been older than previously thought. Yes, it's an assumption, but given the relatively large number of Philip's wives and the small number of his children it is highly possible that many of his offspring never made it past their early years. And here is the instance where I disagree with one of your points - "A bad case of changing the premises to distort the actual evidence." Yes, the premises were changed, but I don't see that the actual evidence was distorted. Sometimes, even using "bad" methodology a person can get lucky with their results!

Best Regards,

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:We are no closer to determining when Cassander headed south, whether before or after Olympias' execution.

I don't really know why for the clues are all within Diodorus' text. There is one overriding factor and that is Olympias' support within Macedonia. From this many other matters follow. Diodorus is clear that the old girl - despite her removal of some of Cassander's supporters - could still count on the support of many of the Macedonians. Thus Cassander sends the "many" deserters to "the various cities" to undermine this support throughout Macedonia resulting in only Pella and Amphipolis holding out (50.2). Even with these hold outs surrendered, Cassander is mistrusting of the Macedonians' loyalties (correctly as it turns out - see the soldiers sent to kill Olympias) and seeks to avoid responsibility for her death/murder. To this end he convenes an assembly where the accusers are the relatives dressed in mourning attire and at which she is not allowed to defend herself because of the very real danger of the Macedonians acquitting her. There follows three attempts to have her done away with - all out of the public eye - of which one is successful (the relatives). Finally, with the murder done, Cassander is still mistrusting of the Macedonians' loyalty: at 52.4 he wishes to do away with the royal family but imprisons them instead, for he wishes first to see how the Macedonians react to Olympias' death.

A rather misleading and unconvincing argument. We do not know the extent of Olympias’ support in Macedonia, save that we can deduce it was modest. Her initial invasion is by a ‘foreign’ army of Epirotes. The small number of troops with Philip and Eurydice deserted to Olympias, but her hold must have been tenuous, for she murders the King and Queen promptly, along with Cassander’s brother and over 100 of his adherents – an atrocity normally indulged in to commit one’s own forces and terrorise opposition. This backfires, and many Macedonians are shocked at the regicide ( remembering the revered and religious position of the King in Macedon). Her support melts away and she soon finds herself besieged in Pydna, with only Pella and Amphipolis held by force. One should not confuse a natural abhorrence to the crime of regicide with ‘loyalty’. Many of Cassander’s supporters and followers would be unquestionably loyal, yet balk at the killing of Olympias or other 'Royals' – as demonstrated by the soldiers sent to kill her. Nor was there any question of Olympias being acquitted, even if she had been allowed to defend herself. Not only was she guilty, but Cassander’s court was never going to render any other verdict. The only question was whether her sentence might stop short of execution. Cassander was clearly taking a chance pursuing his vengeance, and he certainly did not want to risk making Olympias’ mistake of committing Royal murder, hence his cunning ‘washing his hands’ of the matter. He was wise too to be cautious about killing the remaining Temenids, and allow matters to ‘cool off’ somewhat, and even then be secretive about the executions.

But all this has everything to do with the horror of killing Royalty, and nothing to do with Macedonian loyalty to Cassander.

If Cassander mistrusted the loyalty of the Macedonians and what they might do after Olympias' death, it is hardly conceivable that he headed off on a major campaign in the south with the matriarch alive and well behind him in Macedonia.

A very poor rationalisation ! One need only refer you to your comments about Cleopatra’s inability to influence events. Olympias’ position was far worse – no troops, no allies, no powerful supporters and held prisoner incommunicado. Cassander did not need to be personally present to ensure his wishes were carried out, any of his adherents could have been trusted with the task, and indeed he had reason to be elsewhere when she died so as not to be personally associated.

There is more though. Although Diodorus 19.52 is largely a thematic excursus on Cassander's royal ambitions (and the actions that demonstrated them), there is a clear chronological pointer at 52.4:

Cassander had determined to do away with Alexander's son and the son's mother, Roxanê, so that there might be no successor to the kingdom; but for the present, since he wished to observe what the common people would say about the slaying of Olympias and since he had no news of Antigonus' success, he placed Roxanê and the child in custody, transferring them to the citadel of Amphipolis...

I don’t see this as a chronological pointer at all – there is no reason why the imprisonment, like Olympias’ death could not have occurred while he was on his way south, allowing him to distance himself personally from these events.

Earlier, we are told (from the royal family's viewpoint) that Aristonous did not surender (in part) due to the fact he was unaware of Eumenes' fate - help might yet come from the royal general. Here, Cassander does not murder Alexander IV and Roxane because he is uncertain how the Macedonians would react to Olympias' death and because he is unaware of Antigonos' victory over Eumenes. The reaction to Olympias' death is the reaction in the immediate aftermath of the act - not months later. It simply isn't conceivable that Eumenes' death and Antigonos' victory (late December / very early January) was not known in Macedonia before Cassander set off "as early as possible in the campaigning season" for what amounted a major campaign taking months including refounding Thebes. Especially with Olympias (and her royal family) alive and well in Macedonia in his rear. Olympias' murder followed close on the heels of her surrender and clearly before Cassander headed off to the Peloponnese for a major campaign.

You are on very uncertain ground here. As you know, the chronology of this period is the subject of debate. The exact date of when Pydna surrendered and how long afterward Olympias was executed is not known. Neither is the date of Gabiene and when news of its outcome reached Macedon. If Cassander was unaware of that outcome, all the more reason to head south and deal with Alexander before possible help from Eumenes could arrive. News of Antigonus’ victory could well have reached him on the march, removing the urgency and allowing him to dawdle and refound Thebes.
For the same reasons you gave in respect of Cleopatra, neither Olympias nor her family were any sort of threat to Cassander whatever. Just when Cassander departed simply cannot be known, only surmised.

Xenophon wrote:This is inaccurate in a couple of respects. First, the 'Kopis' was not just a cavalry sword, for a shorter infantry version for use on foot was very popular at this time.

I did not say it was "just a cavalry sword".

No, you inferred it. I was just clarifying matters.

Xenophon wrote:
Whoah there ! Firstly, it is not certain she was executed with swords at all. Stoning is perhaps a more slightly favoured option.

I actually said that Justin's account was "the most likely". It coheres with Diodorus and I hold to that view.

Since he was probably familiar with Diodorus’ account, it is hardly surprising it “coheres”. Justin’s account is demonstrably fictional and the details he gives impossible ( the thrusting gladius did not exist at the time), hence were added by him, I would give his account short shrift.

Xenophon wrote:Had the execution been carried out by the soldiers first sent, then I would agree with you that sword might be considered more likely, but the actual deed, upon which our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously, was most probably performed by the outraged relatives of Cassander's supporters murdered by Olympias ( some 100 or so victims). Such a mob would be unlikely to be armed with swords, even if many of them were soldiers or ex-soldiers, because they were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution.

Which is to put a spin on the source material that is not justified. Diodorus 19.51.5; Just. 14.6.10:

They, accordingly, broke into the royal house, but when they beheld Olympias, overawed by her exalted rank, they withdrew with their task unfulfilled. But the relatives of her victims, wishing to curry favour with Cassander as well as to avenge their dead, murdered the queen, who uttered no ignoble or womanish plea.

The executioners, on beholding her, struck with the recollection of her former royal dignity, and with the names of so many of their kings, that occurred to their memory in connection with her, stood still, 11 until others were sent by Cassander to despatch her;

Now, both sources are summarising and Diodorus, as evidenced by his excursus on Cassander's ambitions, rather sharply. The process usually results in matters left out rather than added. Justin and Diodorus report essentially the same thing: soldiers/executioners balked at murdering the matriarch and the aggrieved relatives accomplished the task. Diodorus records a motive aside from revenge which Justin doesn't bother with and Justin notes that the relatives did so with Cassander's assent. Neither additional piece of information is out of place and neither should be dismissed; they are, in fact, complimentary. It is not conceivable that the murder was carried out without Cassander's consent - his concern for the reaction and Olympias' support among the Macedonians has been addressed. What is nowhere apparent in our sources is Xenophon's colour or spin: "our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously" and "they [the relatives] were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution". The relatives, acting under Cassander's fiat, carried out the execution and were clearly prepared to do so.

It appears you have misread or misinterpreted what I wrote. There is no 'spin' at all. It is quite conceivable that Justin is simply drawing on Diodorus here. [ or the same source]. I simply meant that originally the execution was supposed to be carried out by the soldiers, but they balked unexpectedly. The relatives then ‘stepped up to the plate’ spontaneously, not having been intended originally as executioners, and did so of their own volition, though clearly being aware of Cassander’s wishes.

Xenophon wrote:Justin's somewhat lurid version is likely to be less accurate, not least because public execution, as opposed to military execution, in Macedon was usually by stoning, but the trauma would be similar in death by hacking.

Gabriel has been the only cited evidence for stoning being the usual method of public execution. His authority would seem only to be Curtius' view that Philotas was stoned - in a "military" execution. Gabriel conveniently leaves out Arrian's view that Philiotas was speared. It would be interesting to see on just what grounds Arrian is not even considered as part of all of the evidence ("3. Be careful to consider contrary evidence as objectively as you can, don't just merely 'explain it away', ignore it, or distort it"). In any case, as I've been at pains to point out, this was not a public execution as our source evidence clearly demonstrates.

See above. I did not cite Gabriel at all. See previous post for the general prevalence of stoning in the Greek oikoumene, and evidence of Macedonian executions. I referred indirectly to Arrian in mentioning alternate methods. If the execution was carried out by, and in front of several hundred grieving and vengeful relatives, I’d call that fairly ‘public’.
Another factor that might militate toward stoning is that this was the only form of execution that would allow grieving mothers and widows and children to participate and avenge their dead. The execution could still have taken place behind ‘closed doors’, in a courtyard or even indoors. ( There are other examples of such stoning)

Again, Justin's version, stripped of the counterpointing literary 'dramatics', is the most likely version and I don't believe anything further can usefully be said on the matter.

If we strip away Justin’s ‘dramatics’, and his inaccuracies of detail about the means/weapon used that he almost certainly invented, then we are left with nothing of his account. We cannot be absolutely certain about the means of execution, save that it was violent and by a mob, which would necessarily have left evidence on the skeleton. In the absence of such, then we should conclude, as the excavators did, that the skeleton cannot be that of Olympias. I agree that nothing further can usefully be said.

[Paralus]

In their general 'Xenophobia' and personal malice, and zeal to argue with anything and everything I might post, Agesilaos and Paralus claim that I 'cite' Richard Gabriel as the evidence for stoning being a common form of execution in Macedonia. That is easily disposed of - I did not. I merely mentioned him as an example of one of many modern writers who accept this - his name just happened to pop into my head.

Along with book title and page number. A citation by any definition. And, although I did not request the sources for the claim, it was that I described you as citing Gabriel.

It's a pity that because I see the murder of Olympias, Cassander's fears and his actions differently to you that you have to see it as "Xenophobia" and "personal malice" that I post same.

Cassander's concern was that if allowed to defend herself, and doubtless make much of being the revered Alexander's mother, she might escape a death sentence. Once convicted and sentenced, she was doomed.

Cassander's concerns extended far beyond the mere possibility of a conviction failing. His concerns are described (and pointed out by myself) clearly in the sources and these concerns are manifest after the conviction. You seem not to be able to see this. It is a rather logical reason (one of them) why Cassander would not leave Macedonia on a campaign in the Peloponnese with Olympias alive and well back in Macedonia.

[Xenophon]

In their general 'Xenophobia' and personal malice, and zeal to argue with anything and everything I might post, Agesilaos and Paralus claim that I 'cite' Richard Gabriel as the evidence for stoning being a common form of execution in Macedonia. That is easily disposed of - I did not. I merely mentioned him as an example of one of many modern writers who accept this - his name just happened to pop into my head.

Along with book title and page number. A citation by any definition. And, although I did not request the sources for the claim, it was that I described you as citing Gabriel.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the abbreviation "e.g.". It means "for example." An example is not the same as a citation.

It's a pity that because I see the murder of Olympias, Cassander's fears and his actions differently to you that you have to see it as "Xenophobia" and "personal malice" that I post same.

Puh....lease ! You and Agesilaos are perpetually 'double teaming' me, as any regular reader here can testify. You aren't fooling anyone.

Cassander's concern was that if allowed to defend herself, and doubtless make much of being the revered Alexander's mother, she might escape a death sentence. Once convicted and sentenced, she was doomed.

Cassander's concerns extended far beyond the mere possibility of a conviction failing. His concerns are described (and pointed out by myself) clearly in the sources and these concerns are manifest after the conviction. You seem not to be able to see this. It is a rather logical reason (one of them) why Cassander would not leave Macedonia on a campaign in the Peloponnese with Olympias alive and well back in Macedonia.

And I have painted a rather different picture. For every plausible reason you can put forward for a 'late' departure, there is an equal, if not more cogent reason, for an early departure.. The chronology is not at all clear. Olympias was not 'alive and well' or capable of causing the slightest bit of mischief, for the reasons I have expounded. She was essentially a 'walking corpse' from the moment of her capture, and absolutely no threat to Cassander so as to cause him to have to stay and deal with her personally. His only concern was the likely horrified reaction to actual regicide that might occur - as Olympias discovered to her cost.

[Paralus]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the abbreviation "e.g.". It means "for example." An example is not the same as a citation.

Quite familiar. You, it seems, are unfamiliar with the word "cite". Perhaps you might care to look it up.

It's a pity that because I see the murder of Olympias, Cassander's fears and his actions differently to you that you have to see it as "Xenophobia" and "personal malice" that I post same.

Puh....lease ! You and Agesilaos are perpetually 'double teaming' me, as any regular reader here can testify. You aren't fooling anyone.

Your paranoia knows few bounds. I wonder just how Taphoi must feel sometimes? Perhaps we are all 'multiple teaming' him? Perhaps dealing with the source evidence might be more productive than dealing with conspiracies.

Cassander's concern was that if allowed to defend herself, and doubtless make much of being the revered Alexander's mother, she might escape a death sentence. Once convicted and sentenced, she was doomed.

Cassander's concerns extended far beyond the mere possibility of a conviction failing. His concerns are described (and pointed out by myself) clearly in the sources and these concerns are manifest after the conviction. You seem not to be able to see this. It is a rather logical reason (one of them) why Cassander would not leave Macedonia on a campaign in the Peloponnese with Olympias alive and well back in Macedonia.

And I have painted a rather different picture. For every plausible reason you can put forward for a 'late' departure, there is an equal, if not more cogent reason, for an early departure.. The chronology is not at all clear. Olympias was not 'alive and well' or capable of causing the slightest bit of mischief, for the reasons I have expounded.

Excellent verb. "Painted" is all that you have done. You really need to deal with the actual source evidence - which I've presented more than once - and do more than just "paint" your own picture. Colouring that evidence with your opinion ("our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously" and "they [the relatives] were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution") is not arguing the evidence. Cassander - as Diodorus and Justin clearly show - would absolutely disagree with that last assertion and you've adduced no evidence to the contrary. In fact, you have yet to deal with the source evidence presented outside your own opinion.

[amyntoros]

In their general 'Xenophobia' and personal malice, and zeal to argue with anything and everything I might post, Agesilaos and Paralus claim that … …

It's a pity that because I see the murder of Olympias, Cassander's fears and his actions differently to you that you have to see it as "Xenophobia" and "personal malice" that I post same.

Puh....lease ! You and Agesilaos are perpetually 'double teaming' me, as any regular reader here can testify. You aren't fooling anyone.

Your paranoia knows few bounds. I wonder just how Taphoi must feel sometimes? Perhaps we are all 'multiple teaming' him? Perhaps dealing with the source evidence might be more productive than dealing with conspiracies.

I'm writing this reluctantly because I'd rather be discussing history and I'm sure that our members would rather be reading about it. However, this does need to be addressed. A difference of opinion is not personal malice, nor should a perceived situation where members argue with "anything and everything I might post" mean that said members post arguments with zeal. And, on the other side of things, I also discourage the use of words such as paranoia.

Wondering how Taphoi must feel is an excellent point. (And here we are, discussing him again and not the subject matter. Forgive me Andrew, but this might help the forum.) I've often, very often, disagreed with Taphoi. It has never been personal but is just one of those twists of fate wherein two people with completely opposing views are active on the same forum. And isn't that a good thing for Pothos, surely? Members with opposing views? Their debates cause ancient sources and evidence to be examined, re-examined, investigated, etc. "Sides" may well be taken, but when such discussions cause increased interest and (hopefully) participation then Pothos benefits. As I've said so many times now, except for the rarest of cases there is no black or white, no right or wrong when we're discussing events from so long ago. We assess the evidence and draw our own opinions. And this is Pothos, a place to freely discuss those opinions. Whatever they may be.

Best Regards,