"To the strongest"
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
spitamenes
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:51 pm
- Location: St.Louis, U.S.
"To the strongest"
So ive been reading more and more on the Diodach wars and what each successor was actually trying to accomplish with theyre own individual plots and schemes. One thing i never realized was how prominent Perdiccas actually was in these turbulant years after Alexanders death in Babylon. I would like to believe Alexander didnt accomplish all that he did just to merely have his top guys slug it out in an extreemely costly and drawn out Battle Royale after his death. He DID give his ring to Perdiccas, wouldnt that be enough to let everyone else know who was next in line? Could he have actually claimed an heir, but given the situation, it was suppressed so they could all have a fair shot at it? And when Alexander stated on his death bed something along the lines of... "there will be great funeral games after my death." Could he have been referring to these Diodich wars?
Re: "To the strongest"
Hi Spitamenes,spitamenes wrote:And when Alexander stated on his death bed something along the lines of... "there will be great funeral games after my death." Could he have been referring to these Diodich wars?
Only time for a quick note for now.
I have no doubt that when Alexander referred to "great funeral games" he was forseeing the Diadoch Wars (if he did indeed say this on his deathbed, of course, rather than it being words put into his mouth with the benefit of hindsight).
Alexander knew exactly what his generals were like, and he was as aware as anyone of the antipathy and rivalry that existed between them (remember the argument between Hephaestion and Craterus - just because Hephaestion was dead doesn't mean that this was the only rancour amongst the generals).
Alexander would have done much better to have named an heir, whether Arrhidaeus, Heracles or his unborn son - which wouldn't necessarily have prevented the bloodshed, but might have done.
Still, considering Alexander is said by three sources (Arrian 7.25.6; Justin 12.15.12; Plutarch Alex. 76.3) to have lost his voice, how did he communicate this vision of his funeral games?
Perhaps this is indeed an addition with hindsight ...It's also interesting that the giving of the ring to Perdiccas only appears in the Vulgate sources ...
ATB
Re: "To the strongest"
I always thought it was a measure of just what a remarkably charismatic leader Alexander must have been that he managed to keep such a group of strong personalities working together when there was, as I think the wars after Alexander's death showed, so much rancor, greed, power-lust, and jealousy among them.
You said:
I think Alexander meant to start a dynasty, but just never imagined he would die when he did. Early thirties is prime of your life age. And even in the ancient world, I expect life expectancy was skewed so low more because of the great mortality rate of children and infants than anything. If you got past the danger years of infancy/childhood without being struck down by disease, you could reasonably expect to live to 55 or 60. (As recently as the 17th century in England approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of children died before the age of five skewing the life expectancy at birth to be about 30 yrs old but if a person lived to age 21, that person could on average expect to live about 40 to 45 more years.) Alexander would have seen years ahead of him to sire sons and stabilize his conquered lands. (I debate whether such a vast empire could have remained stable for long and whether Alexander would have eventually shot himself in the foot by being too preoccupied with new conquests to properly solidify his hold on what he had. I do think if Alexander had lived for just 8 to 10 more years, it might have made an enormous difference in how it all played out.)
I tend to think Alexander didn't name an heir because if Alexander had named an heir, I think it would have been particularly in Perdiccas' interest to say so. Perdiccas could have tried to play the angle of "This is Alexander's heir and I am going to defend his claim" while covertly working to establish Perdiccas himself as a better candidate for king. Afterall, there was the precedent of Alexander's father Philip starting out as regent of an infant heir and working himself onto the throne.
You said:
Me too.I think Alexander intended to leave a dynasty behind him, and that much of his integrationist policies were undertaken out of a desire to lay the foundations for that dynasty (the Great Wedding at Susa, bringing up the Persian boys into the army). The marriage to Stateira in particular seems like a move to legitimize the claim of Alexander's future son to be king of Asia in the eyes of his Persian subjects by making that child a blood descendant of the previous monarch's lineage. And not to talk unremittingly of Hephaistion, but having some loyal Macedonian guy marry Drypetis also gives a second (albeit a longer) path to legitimizing Alexander's descendants' claims. As in, let's say for whatever reason, Alex decides to make Roxanne's son the heir instead of Stateira's, Alexander and Roxanne's son could still marry Drypetis's daughter (if she has one). Alexander's son would then be at least wed to the blood descendant of the previous royal lineage and their child would be a blood descendant of the previous royal lineage as well. (The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?)spitamenes wrote:I would like to believe Alexander didnt accomplish all that he did just to merely have his top guys slug it out in an extremely costly and drawn out Battle Royale after his death.
I think Alexander meant to start a dynasty, but just never imagined he would die when he did. Early thirties is prime of your life age. And even in the ancient world, I expect life expectancy was skewed so low more because of the great mortality rate of children and infants than anything. If you got past the danger years of infancy/childhood without being struck down by disease, you could reasonably expect to live to 55 or 60. (As recently as the 17th century in England approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of children died before the age of five skewing the life expectancy at birth to be about 30 yrs old but if a person lived to age 21, that person could on average expect to live about 40 to 45 more years.) Alexander would have seen years ahead of him to sire sons and stabilize his conquered lands. (I debate whether such a vast empire could have remained stable for long and whether Alexander would have eventually shot himself in the foot by being too preoccupied with new conquests to properly solidify his hold on what he had. I do think if Alexander had lived for just 8 to 10 more years, it might have made an enormous difference in how it all played out.)
Well, he elevated Perdiccas to all Hephaistion's old offices making him essentially Alexander's number 2. So I think its likely Perdiccas was at least Alexander's second choice for regent and probably his first. (Crateros might have been ahead of Perdiccas if Crateros had been there because I think giving Crateros the regency in Macedon is a pretty significant indicator of trust & confidence.) I think the problem for Perdiccas was there was enough ambiguity in what Alexander meant by giving the ring and just too much at stake for the other generals. These were all men with a lot of pride and ambition.spitamenes wrote:He DID give his ring to Perdiccas, wouldnt that be enough to let everyone else know who was next in line?
I tend to think Alexander didn't name an heir because if Alexander had named an heir, I think it would have been particularly in Perdiccas' interest to say so. Perdiccas could have tried to play the angle of "This is Alexander's heir and I am going to defend his claim" while covertly working to establish Perdiccas himself as a better candidate for king. Afterall, there was the precedent of Alexander's father Philip starting out as regent of an infant heir and working himself onto the throne.