Why Polyperchon and not Cassander?

[Paralus]

"He destroyed the whole house of Alexander to the bitter end. Olympias he threw to the exasperated Macedonians to be stoned to death; and the sons of Alexander, Heracles by Barsine and Alexander by Roxana, he killed by poison. But he himself was not to come to a good end. He was filled with dropsy, and from the dropsy came worms while he was yet alive."
Oh dear Amyntoros! Spot on, but not the sort of dinner party conversation one likes to hear!Cassander was a thorough piece of work in the great Macedonian Baronial sense. Makes one wonder if Antipater didn't actually regret the fact that Alexander wasn't in a proper paranoid rage when he whacked Cassander's head against that wall doesn't it? Certainly gives one pause over the decision to award the "regency" (or whatever it was being termed at that stage) to the rather nondescript and pedestrian Polyperchon. Safe hands behind the wicket (base plate) perhaps? Antipater had been instrumental in the making of kings before GÇô well at least one, Alexander III GÇô he could do so again, but not with the rather unscrupulously ambitious Cassander in charge?
I wonder whether in 324/3, if the old boy just might have thought that the time was coming to see to that succession. Also whether the view from Pella GÇô interpreted through the eyes of an aging, thoroughly Macedonian political player GÇô might not have been one of a continuing dilution of Macedonian power and an ever more distant GÇô both physically and ethnically GÇô "King". A king increasingly given to viewing the Macedonia and "Europe" he'd left behind as a backwater to be treated in the fashion indicated by the "Decree of the Exiles".
And, whether events in Babylon during that climatic year may have forced the hand of one of the more adroit political and dynastic players just that year or three too early.
Marcus asked the question with respect to the perceived guilt of Antipater. We don't have the information. We don't have the story from the Macedonian side. It can't have looked good. From Antipater's position the Asian conquest had left the home army in the state where it (and Antipater) were repulsed in the field and locked up in Lamia (after Alexander's death) for months awaiting reinforcements from the East.Continued...

[Paralus]

For whatever reason, he refused to meet his king in Babylon. Given Alexander's track record with respect to those summoned to court over the period of his last year or so (more actually if we include earlier judicial murders), it may be as simple as Antipater not feeling well. It may be that Antipater viewed it in the same light as having the pleasure of spaghetti in a trattoria in New York's "Little Italy" with Don Corleone. Or, it may be something else entirely. He did not act as a man without any concerns mightI've often wondered over the Polyperchon decision. It seems Antipater was definitely about ensuring the succession. Everything he did post Alexander's death demonstrates it. I believe he may have felt that Cassander (among others) did not feel that way.
Was he planning that before Alexander's death though? And, if so, with whom?Paralus.

[kennyxx]

Michael HailI realy must admit ignorance with the sussesions and the events following Alexanders death. Even my knowledge with Cassander is prety limited. But the outline is that the guy was a blue Print For The Neros and Caligulas.From very earlyin his life im sure he had ambitions for power even without Antipaters best wishes. But throughout history we get examples of pretty nasty pieces of work gaining power from whatever means.Wecant really say why Antipater didnt do as ordered when summoned by Alexander. Nor can we conclude Alexander had it in his mind to kill him. Im with Marcus on that one. But Cassander went to Babylon for a reason and I believe his reasons were all of his own.He did have his eye on the ball im sure and maybe those around him underestimated thios guy as so many Phschoshave been.The boy was famous for poisoning. I doubt he shook when he saw Alexanders Statues as well im sure he didnt give a toss. He had ooportunuty and the best ally to administer any funny potions his brother Alexanders cup bearer. I am pretty sure Cassander was a pretty frightening guy and not a man to cross. Did Alexanders sister marry the guy because she loved him or out of fear.Although if he did poison Alexander at least we gotta give him some credit for havingthe balls to even think about it. Unless he coveredhis tracks very well as these people usually do and get some other sucker to take the blame.Kenny

[bob]

Wow, what a great thread. First and foremost, something had to have been up with Antipater and Cassander. Since Antipater didn't go to Babylon, we know he knew he was a dead man if he went. Either because he was in a plot, or because of Alexander's paranoia. However, Diodorus is STILL the earliest account on Alexander we have, and he relates the following in the last chapter of book 17>>> "They say that Antipater, who had been left by Alexander as viceroy in Europe, was at variance with the king's mother Olympias. At first he did not take her seriously because Alexander did not heed her complaints against him, but later, as their enmity kept growing and the king showed an anxiety to gratify his mother in everything out of piety, Antipater gave many indications of his disaffection. This was bad enough, but the murder of Parmenion and Philotas struck terror into Antipater as into all of Alexander's Friends, so by the hand of his own son, who was the king's wine-pourer, he administered poison to the king. [2] After Alexander's death, Antipater held the supreme authority in Europe and then his son Casander took over the kingdom, so that many historians did not dare write about the drug. Casander, however, is plainly disclosed by his own actions as a bitter enemy to Alexander's policies. He murdered Olympias and threw out her body without burial, and with great enthusiasm restored Thebes, which had been destroyed by Alexander. [3] After the king's death Sisyngambris, Dareius's mother, mourned his passing and her own bereavement, and coming to the limit of her life she refrained from food and died on the fifth day, abandoning life painfully but not ingloriously.

[marcus]

I've said so before, but I still feel doubtful over whether Antipater was in danger, simply because Iollas was still being employed as Alexander's cup-bearer. From Alexander's own past record, if he had begun to suspect Antipater, would he have kept his son in such a delicate position?Still, I accept that Antipater might have *thought* he was in danger if he went to Babylon; but if he did think so, did he really believe he would be any safer by remaining in Macedonia ... and it seems rather callous to send his son in his place.ATBMarcus

[Jim Boudreaux]

The support given to the legitimate authority of the kings was of paramount importance to anyone wishing for stability. Antipater knew from his near death experience at Triparadaesus that without respect for that authority not only the conquered peoples but also the Macedonians themselves would prove ungovernable. Cassander recognized that as well and advised his father never to let the two kings to go far from his sight. That Antipater had regard for Cassander is shown by his trusting him with the mission in Babylon and by his assigning him as second only to Antigonus in the war against Eumenes. It is telling that rather than remaining at his post in Asia Cassander often left his brother Pleistarchus to care for his duties while he went to Pella to keep himself engaged in events there.Polyperchon on the other hand had been left in command of Europe while Antipater, Craterus and Antigonus went to war against Perdiccas. While in charge he craftily overcame a threat by the combined forces of Alexander of Aetolia and Menon of Thessaly whom he defeated in battle. Polyperchon engineered a rapprochement with the Aetolians on such agreeable terms that they grew attached to him for almost the rest of his career.So the choice facing Antipater was to leave the delicacy of maintaining the kings' majesty to a son who was self-serving or a commander proven in dealing successfully with central Greece.

[bob]

Good points. Also, on the one hand, I feel maybe Alexander was poisoned, but on the other, since it took him 10 days to die, he had time, to well, if he suspected foul play, have his wrath in motion. That being said it is odd to me how Alexander and Hephaestian died at such young ages. Odd. Diodorus does list that section after his "standard" episode on death by fever. But we do know from Diodorus, that poison theories were abounding at least by his time, if not long before. But good points none the less.

[Paralus]

G'day Marcus.I don't think we need to look too far for the answer to that question (why keep Iollas as cup bearer).One can be reasonably assured that Alexander - given the paranoia he was displaying daily - had a good watch on what went into his cup. Iollas probably spent as much time on the turps as his king!The real answer though, lies in the clause you use: "Given Alexander's past recordGǪ" Indeed. Which record can (and has) been read as providing chapter and verse in "constructive judicial murder 101". Philotas never saw it coming. His father did if Plutarch is correct, though not his own. Alexander of Lyncestis had done the right thing at the accession GÇô he too never saw it coming. The arrogance of Callisthenes (should the story be true) blinded him to the constructed trap. And there is more.Now, unlike the wretched Abulites and his son (among others), Antipater was in Europe. There would be no quick visit and dispatch here. Though, it's worth asking whether Craterus' instructions were remotely similar to those received by Cleander and Sitalces. Given Alexander's demonstrated behaviour, "remove" or "replace" would be rather pregnant words.It's creates difficulty when one applies the modern view of morality to Alexander and others in antiquity. Whilst it would be churlish to suggest there was no paternal love, it seems that such did not always dominate the thinking of the erstwhile "war lords" or "clan chiefs" of the Macedonian Baronetcy. The history Macedonian court and its politics are rather littered with the corpses of "beloved" sons, brothers, cousins, fathers and sons-in-law, not to start with the women (whose role under the Diadochoi GÇô Berenice, Arisone, etc GÇô would be a master class in fratricidal politics). Would he have sacrificed his son? If he thought the price was worth the goods. No doubt.As events were prove ad-nauseum, scratch the surface of a Macedonian baron (or marshal) and a millimetre under the surface was the fractious feudal war lord of not too far hence. A creature at home with blood feuds, advancement by murder and dynastic marriage and redolent with territorial designs not unlike that of a strutting dog. Difference here was that there were now many more trees, posts and palaces to urinate on and a vast treasury to fund the urine. Paralus.

[xxx]

Have to be a bit careful here. It is very unlikely that Antipater wanted to go to Babylon - he was old, he was used to ruling Macedon. He was 'comfortable' and no one around to harangue him about his business besides the infernal women of Alexander's family. It could not have been easy for him. Alexander would have thought it a good idea to bring Antipater to Babylon, remove him from Macedon to cease the quarreling of his female family members (which included not only his mother and sister, but his step mothers and their kids who would not have been happy either with a non-Argead ruling)and open up a place for Craterus to go and rule amongst Macedonians where he was most happy. Antipater was formidable - Craterus backed down from him when Alexander died. But Alexander owed his kingship very much to Antipater. He would have been the swing vote that got the job done, the weight to counter Parmenion and Attalus' ambitions. Antipater appears to have been old line Macedonian. When it came to appointing a successor at his death, he knew his son and what his son would do to the last Argeads. He chose old line Macedonian tradition over young usurper. Shame he didn't have a better old line Macedonian to choose from.

[ruthaki]

Well "xxx" I agree with you completly.
Well said!

[Paralus]

G'day "xxx".Of course Antipater was comfortable in Macedonia as "Viceroy of Europe". And yes, he was indeed old. He did not have the royal court to contend with, but did indeed have that poisonous bitch Olympias. Better "not being" harangued by her or the royal court? Six of one half a dozen the other I'd suspect.Antipater was indeed a powerful player in the Macedonian game. Stripped of Macedonia (and his base) and "brought out" to Babylon he was just an old and GÇô in the new hybrid East GÇô irrelevant fart. I can find little reason for his transfer to Babylon other that being made a male nanny for the royal children (sorry, another of those Paralus throwaway lines).No, Antipater was being deliberately stripped of his power and support GÇô neutered. That would either be accomplished by placing him within the confines (word used deliberately) of the royal court, or a funeral bonfire. More likely the latter. Craterus, as the sources attest, was one of Alexander's more accomplished generals and was hugely popular with the troops GÇô for which read Macedonian troops. He was not, in any way shape or form, popular with Alexander's true life partner, Hephaestion. It is possible that Alexander simply wanted one of his most able commanders in Europe. Antipater had though, proved more than able. Had he the troops that Craterus was bringing home I doubt the siege of Lamia would have occurred.As to his ability to travel, that was no impediment as shown by his diligent attendance at the Triparadeisus settlement in winter 321/0 at which time he was some three to four years older. He had reasons to travel then: assuring both his position as Regent/Viceroy and firmly keeping hold of his power base in the face of the ensuing struggle. Those same reasons applied (minus the struggle) in 324/3. Interesting that facing off against Alexander's extant Marshals and an angry royal army seemed rather more appealing than facing Alexander. No other real difference strikes me.And yes, itGÇÖs a pity that the only "true Macedonian" for Antipater to appoint was Polyperchon.Paralus.

[agesilaos]

It should not be forgotten that Antipater did NOT ignore Kassander but appointed him Chiliarch to Polyperchon's Epimelites or Guardian; it seems just as likely that Antipater had engineered a role as eminence grise for his son who characteristically missed the point and started civil war.

[Paralus]

G'day Agesilaos."Eminence grise" indeed! You're missed around these parts. Visit more often.Of course the goose overplayed an always weak hand. An ugly person of greed and naked ambition backed by an emasculated (in Macedonian manpower terms) Macedonia who was constantly reduced to agreeing alliances or negotiating terms.Antipater well realised the diminishing place of Macedonia in the affairs of the new Empire. It is an entirely personal opinion (aren't they all), but I believe Antipater had well realised that Alexander considered Macedon and Greece of very little importance in the ongoing scheme of things. Hence his disobedience.The power of the "old", the way it's always been can be compelling GÇô enough for Antipater. Macedon did not change. Despite the pretensions of brotherhood, the history of Macedon after Alexander III is one of insularity, infighting (what's new) and failure to read change. The Romans administered the coup de grace.Paralus.