King Antigonus

Discuss the wars of Alexander's successors

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

King Antigonus

Post by Fiona »

Plutarch says in his Demetrius:
For example they (the Athenians) were the first people in the world to confer upon Antigonus and Demetrius the title of king.
If I have understood this correctly, once Antigonus accepted this and called himself a king, the other successors quickly followed suit. But what did Antigonus call himself king of? 'King of Athens' sounds terrible - it's hard to believe that's what democracy-loving Athenians meant, or would have wanted. 'King of Phrygia' sounds very provincial, and not in keeping with his aim to be acknowledged as Alexander's successor.
Perhaps to be called basileusyou didn't have to specify the territory? Could it perhaps just be a kind of status symbol?
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this.
(It reminds me of 1066 and All That - "It is not known, however, what Wencelas was king of..."
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: King Antigonus

Post by Paralus »

The context of Plutarch's remark is the expulsion of Demetrius of Phalerum in 307/6. Whether or not the Athenians called Antigonus and Demetrius king is moot as they went one better: they called them gods. “Saviour gods” to be precise.

In typical lickspittle fashion – for Athens at this time and the next century – the city created two new tribes (Demetrias and Antigonas) and erected a gold statue to each alongside the tyrannicides. The archon year was replaced with the name of the priest of the saviour cult.

Within a year, after Demetrius does over Ptolemy at Salamis (Cyprus), both Antigonus and Demetrius assumed the diadem. So much for Plutarch’s “although both had up to that time shrunk from using the word”: seems their heads had been turned?

Antigonus did not claim the royal title; the Athenians may have granted it. In any case, Antigonus had been “King of Asia” since doing in Eumenes back in January 316. When he entered Persis in the spring of that year the people acclaimed him by that title. I find no record of Antigonus correcting the error. Then again, considering the way he was thinking in early 318:
Diod. 18.50.5:
Antigonus also at once called a council of his friends and, after he had made them acquainted with his design for gaining imperial power, assigned satrapies to some of the more important friends and military commands to others; and by holding up great expectations to all of them, he filled them with enthusiasm for his undertakings. Indeed he had in mind to go through Asia, remove the existing satraps, and reorganize the positions of command in favour of his friends.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: King Antigonus

Post by Fiona »

The Athenians don't seem very impressive in this story. It's very curious how popular conceptions are fixed, and on what - mention 'ancient Athens' and most people would get a mental image of a dignified philosophers, not obsequious flatterers - yet this is still Athens. History has been kind to her, though I guess she deserves it. Everyone can have an off-day.
It still strikes me as very ironic, though, that they are so excited by Antigonid Demetrius liberating them from Demetrius of Phalerum, presumably because the latter was Cassander's officer and the symbol of the hated Macedonian occupation.
They were opening the gates to Alexander's real heir.
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: King Antigonus

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:It still strikes me as very ironic, though, that they are so excited by Antigonid Demetrius liberating them from Demetrius of Phalerum, presumably because the latter was Cassander's officer and the symbol of the hated Macedonian occupation.
They were opening the gates to Alexander's real heir.
Yes, quite ironic. Athens is liberated from the Macedonian yoke by a Macedonian.

Athens was only too happy to fete its Macedonian overlord of the day. One might become dizzy at the honours voted to Cassander's men, Demetrius and Antigonus, Ptolemy(ies) and Ptolemaic officers, the odd Lysamachian officer.....

They were so taken with Demetrius that they feted him a second time - with that crawling paean.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
abm
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:38 pm

Re: King Antigonus

Post by abm »

Fiona wrote: Perhaps to be called basileus you didn't have to specify the territory? Could it perhaps just be a kind of status symbol?
Indeed, Hellenistic kings were simply king, and it did not really matter what they were king of, and it would seem that like the monarchs of the ancient near east they all considered themselves king of everything. The exact details of the matter of royal titles are unknown and debated, as there might be an exception for the basileus makedonôn, the king of the Macedonians.
As for being king without really having a kingdom, the classic example from the age of the Successors is of course Demetrios immediately after Ipsos.
Paralus is correct to state that Antigonos had been called king for some time before 307. Bosworth, 'Ptolemy and the Will of Alexander', in Bosworth & Baynham, Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, has collected the evidence for this. I am not so sure about Persis in 316, though. Diodorus (XIX 48.1) writes:
he was deemed worthy of royal honors by the local population, as if he was the recognized master of Asia
This is not quite the same as actually being acclaimed king. Furthermore, one may well wonder whether Diodorus' claim is true. It strikes me as rather odd that Antigonos who just fought a war against Peukestas would be so warmly welcomed in Persis, given the latter's popularity there (Diod. XIX 48.5).
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: King Antigonus

Post by marcus »

abm wrote: It strikes me as rather odd that Antigonos who just fought a war against Peukestas would be so warmly welcomed in Persis, given the latter's popularity there (Diod. XIX 48.5).
Indeed. And I always had the impression that the reason Seleucus was able to take back and hold on to the "heartlands" (even though he didn't hold on to Persis for *that* long) so relatively easily, was because Antigonus had behaved in so heavy-handed a fashion there.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: King Antigonus

Post by Paralus »

abm wrote:It strikes me as rather odd that Antigonos who just fought a war against Peukestas would be so warmly welcomed in Persis, given the latter's popularity there (Diod. XIX 48.5).
marcus wrote:And I always had the impression that the reason Seleucus was able to take back and hold on to the "heartlands" (even though he didn't hold on to Persis for *that* long) so relatively easily, was because Antigonus had behaved in so heavy-handed a fashion there.
Being feted as king and claiming kingship are, as abm says, not quite the same thing. Marcus is on track with his observation about Seleucus viz Antigonus. The clue lies in the impression Antigonus made and the full quote is worth reading:
Diod. 19.48.1-2:
As soon as Antigonus came into Persia, he was granted the dignity of kingship by the inhabitants as [if he was] the acknowledged lord of Asia, and he himself sitting in council with his friends considered the question of the satrapies. He permitted Tlepolemus to retain Carmania, and likewise Stasanor to retain Bactrianê, for it was not easy to remove them by sending a message since they had conducted themselves well toward the inhabitants and had many supporters. He sent Evitus to Aria, but when Evitus died soon afterwards he put Evagoras in his place, a man admired for both courage and shrewdness. He permitted Oxyartes, the father of Roxanê, to keep the satrapy in Paropanisadae as before, for he too could not be removed without a long campaign and a strong army.
Bosworth (Legacy of Alexander) notes that the Loeb translation wrongly adds the qualification. Again, Antigonus has not claimed this title, it has been offered and he will have been feted in Achaemenid royal tradition. There is no record of Antigonus correcting the record though.

Now it needs be stressed that Antigonus “came into Persia” at the head of an army larger than that of Alexander at Gaugamela. This army will have been in the order of over 50,000 foot and some 12,000 or more horse. Further he had just quelled a revolt of sorts in Media led by Eumenid partisans and followers of Peithon. Antigonus, whilst not having accompanied Alexander beyond Phrygia, was well versed in Alexandrine juridical practice. He had summoned the credulous former somatophylax to court with promises of rule over the upper satrapies. In a kangaroo court of his philoi he charged him with treason, obtained the verdict he wanted and murdered him.

And now he was in Persis, the effective ruler of Asia from the Hellespont to the borders of the former Indian satrapies. The obsequious reception, to me, is entirely understandable. More so if the local population hoped to keep their “popular” satrap who had just betrayed Eumenes at Gabiene. In a scene reminiscent of Babylon 323 and Triparadeisus, Antigonus divides “the spoils”. In the end, the feting by the inhabitants of Persis did not succeed: Peucestas was deposed and, wisely, not judicially murdered. Just as Peucestas was firmly "Alexander's man", the satrapy would now be ruled by "Antigonus's man".

As for Seleucus, he didn’t hold Persis until after 312. Antigonus cut his tenure as satrap of Babylonia short in 316. As with Peucestas Antigonus was not about to allow a popular satrap, not lacking in ambition, to retain a province as important as Babylonia. Seleucus was no Peithon and, being adept at reading the signs, scarpered to Ptolemy ahead of the sword. He did return though, in 312, and having re-established his position in Babylonia, set about defeating Antigonus’s man Nicanor over 312/11. He then invaded the upper satrapies in a campaign over spring / summer of 311. Whilst Demetrius, in a cameo invasion, plundered Babylonia in his absence, Seleucus’ position as satrap was indicated by the very act of plundering: these were not Antigonus’s lands.

The last real threat to Seleucus in the east was Antigonus’s invasion over 310-308. He retired from this campaign leaving Seleucus in firm control. A control he would exercise until his death.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: King Antigonus

Post by Fiona »

abm wrote:
Indeed, Hellenistic kings were simply king, and it did not really matter what they were king of, and it would seem that like the monarchs of the ancient near east they all considered themselves king of everything.
This is an interesting, thought - thank you. If this was a common attitude, perhaps it sheds some light upon Alexander's own ambitions. It suggests a kind of permanent tension, with each king always ready to extend his sphere of influence if another king took his eye off the ball - no real acknowledgment of permanent borders or territory, but a situation where it was a given that you would take more if you could, because you thought you were king of everything already.
If that's the way their minds were working, then Alexander's actions seem much more reasonable and understandable. Why stop, when you were on a roll?
abm wrote:
Paralus is correct to state that Antigonos had been called king for some time before 307. Bosworth, 'Ptolemy and the Will of Alexander', in Bosworth & Baynham, Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, has collected the evidence for this. I am not so sure about Persis in 316, though. Diodorus (XIX 48.1) writes:
he was deemed worthy of royal honors by the local population, as if he was the recognized master of Asia
This is not quite the same as actually being acclaimed king. Furthermore, one may well wonder whether Diodorus' claim is true. It strikes me as rather odd that Antigonos who just fought a war against Peukestas would be so warmly welcomed in Persis, given the latter's popularity there (Diod. XIX 48.5).
Sorry to be slow, I'm struggling to keep up, here - 307 is the date for the Athens episode, is it? If that's right, then perhaps this vagueness in the way Diodorus chooses to describe Persis in 316 explains why Plutarch is saying the Athenians were the first.
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: King Antigonus

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:Sorry to be slow, I'm struggling to keep up, here - 307 is the date for the Athens episode, is it? If that's right, then perhaps this vagueness in the way Diodorus chooses to describe Persis in 316 explains why Plutarch is saying the Athenians were the first.
Fiona
I'm not aware, leaving out Plutarch's aside, that the Athenians conferred kingship upon Antigonus. They did dedicate a cult - as gods - to both Antigonus and Demetrius in 307. Perhaps there is an inscription referring to "king" Antigonus that predates the One-Eye's adoption of the diadem?

As I wrote earlier, I think Diodorus is correct that royal honours were conferred upon Antigonus in 316 - for the understandable reasons offered above. Again, as abm states, this is not necessarily the same as being acclaimed king. I do agree with Bosworth, though, that he will have been feted in the Achaemenid royal fashion. Whether he accepted it as such is the question. That transactions are recorded after this with Antigonus described as “royal general” would indicate he did not.

The population of Persis did not need to worry about that distinction though. Their purpose was to mollify the victorious general of the biggest army in the east. Their latest "conqueror".
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Post Reply