Cassander (and Olympias)

Discuss the wars of Alexander's successors

Moderator: pothos moderators

agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by agesilaos »

None of the Diadochoi took the Royal title before Demetrios and Antigonos were so style by the sychophantic Athenian State in 306 and then they all did with even Agathokles of Sicily getting in on the act. What singles Antigonos Monopthalmos out is that he expunged Alexander IV from his dating formulae substituting himself wherever we have evidence, it was very much his taste to eliminate the ‘rule’ of Alexander IV; a practice at variance with both Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleukid Babylonia, no dating formulae surviving from Lysimachid Thrace or Antipatrid Macedonia. The significant thing is that on regaining Babylon Seleukos re-instates dating by the king rather than substituting his own satrapal dating. Nor is it a co-incidence that Antigonos retro-dates his first year to eliminate Alexander IV’s reign, he might have taken things back to his commission as ‘Strategos of Asia’ in 319.

Some evidence for the popular uprising in favour of Herakles might be more use than the fairy-tale musings; Pltarch has this on his fate, De vitioso pudore 4 (On not allowing ourselves to be bullied)
Polyperchon agreed with Cassander for a hundred talents to do away with Heracles, Alexander's son by Barsinê, and proceeded to invite him to dinner. When the youth, suspecting and dreading the invitation, alleged an indisposition, Polyperchon called on him and said: "Young man, the first quality of your father you should imitate is his readiness to oblige and attachment to his friends, unless indeed you fear me as a plotter." The youth was shamed into going; and they gave him his dinner and strangled him.
Rather more mundane than your hostage crisis scenario. :lol: :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:None of the Diadochoi took the Royal title before Demetrios and Antigonos were so style by the sychophantic Athenian State in 306 and then they all did with even Agathokles of Sicily getting in on the act. What singles Antigonos Monopthalmos out is that he expunged Alexander IV from his dating formulae substituting himself wherever we have evidence, it was very much his taste to eliminate the ‘rule’ of Alexander IV; a practice at variance with both Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleukid Babylonia, no dating formulae surviving from Lysimachid Thrace or Antipatrid Macedonia. The significant thing is that on regaining Babylon Seleukos re-instates dating by the king rather than substituting his own satrapal dating. Nor is it a co-incidence that Antigonos retro-dates his first year to eliminate Alexander IV’s reign, he might have taken things back to his commission as ‘Strategos of Asia’ in 319.

Some evidence for the popular uprising in favour of Herakles might be more use than the fairy-tale musings; Pltarch has this on his fate, De vitioso pudore 4 (On not allowing ourselves to be bullied)
Polyperchon agreed with Cassander for a hundred talents to do away with Heracles, Alexander's son by Barsinê, and proceeded to invite him to dinner. When the youth, suspecting and dreading the invitation, alleged an indisposition, Polyperchon called on him and said: "Young man, the first quality of your father you should imitate is his readiness to oblige and attachment to his friends, unless indeed you fear me as a plotter." The youth was shamed into going; and they gave him his dinner and strangled him.
Rather more mundane than your hostage crisis scenario. :lol: :lol:
You have yourself presented some of the evidence that the attempt to place Heracles on the throne was a popular uprising. It is self-evident from the fact that Polyperchon managed to assemble a large enough army actually to invade Macedon and confront Cassander on behalf of Alexander's son.
All of the generals that made themselves kings after 306BC pretended that their rule had begun from the death of Alexander. They did so in order to secure the legal succession of their children, not out of disloyalty to Alexander IV, who had been dead for many years by the time these things happened.
Dating formulae are not evidence that Antigonus rebelled against Alexander IV. He did not. Satrapal coinage issues had long been traditional within the Persian Empire. And the sources suggest that Antigonus was the moving force behind the peace treaty of 311BC: "in this it was provided that Cassander be general of Europe until Alexander, the son of Roxane, should come of age" Diodorus 19.105.1.
Furthermore, Antigonus's loyalty to the crown and pressure upon Cassander are solidly attested:
Diodorus 19.61.1-3 wrote:Antigonus, after Polyperchon's son Alexander had come to him, made a pact of friendship with him, and then, calling a general assembly of the soldiers and of the aliens who were dwelling there, laid charges against Cassander, bringing forward the murder of Olympias and the treatment of Roxanê and the king. Moreover, he said that Cassander had married Thessalonicê by force, and was clearly trying to establish his own claim to the Macedonian throne; and also that, although the Olynthians were very bitter enemies of the Macedonians, Cassander had re-established them in a city called by his own name and had rebuilt Thebes, which had been razed by the Macedonians. When the crowd showed that it shared his wrath, he introduced a decree according to the terms of which it was voted that Cassander was to be an enemy unless he destroyed these cities again, released the king and his mother Roxanê from imprisonment and restored them to the Macedonians, and, in general, yielded obedience to Antigonus the duly established general who had succeeded to the guardianship of the throne. It was also stated that all the Greeks were free, not subject to foreign garrisons, and autonomous. When the soldiers had voted in favour of these measures, Antigonus sent men in every direction to carry the decree, for he believed that through their hope of freedom he would gain the Greeks as eager participants with him in the war, and that the generals and satraps in the upper satrapies, who had suspected that he was determined to depose the kings who inherited from Alexander, would, if he publicly took upon himself the war in their behalf, all change their minds and promptly obey his orders.
You are inventing the disaffection between Antigonus and the Royal Family as you invent so much to suit your rhetorical diatribes. And as you similarly disparage the actual evidence to suit yourself by quibbling about "lack of source criticism", whenever anybody quotes any source evidence that refutes you.
Best wishes,
Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:Dating formulae are not evidence that Antigonus rebelled against Alexander IV. He did not. Satrapal coinage issues had long been traditional within the Persian Empire. And the sources suggest that Antigonus was the moving force behind the peace treaty of 311BC: "in this it was provided that Cassander be general of Europe until Alexander, the son of Roxane, should come of age" Diodorus 19.105.1.
Furthermore, Antigonus's loyalty to the crown and pressure upon Cassander are solidly attested:
Diodorus 19.61.1-3 wrote:Antigonus, after Polyperchon's son Alexander had come to him, made a pact of friendship with him, and then, calling a general assembly of the soldiers and of the aliens who were dwelling there, laid charges against Cassander, bringing forward the murder of Olympias and the treatment of Roxanê and the king. Moreover, he said that Cassander had married Thessalonicê by force, and was clearly trying to establish his own claim to the Macedonian throne; and also that, although the Olynthians were very bitter enemies of the Macedonians, Cassander had re-established them in a city called by his own name and had rebuilt Thebes, which had been razed by the Macedonians. When the crowd showed that it shared his wrath, he introduced a decree according to the terms of which it was voted that Cassander was to be an enemy unless he destroyed these cities again, released the king and his mother Roxanê from imprisonment and restored them to the Macedonians, and, in general, yielded obedience to Antigonus the duly established general who had succeeded to the guardianship of the throne. It was also stated that all the Greeks were free, not subject to foreign garrisons, and autonomous. When the soldiers had voted in favour of these measures, Antigonus sent men in every direction to carry the decree, for he believed that through their hope of freedom he would gain the Greeks as eager participants with him in the war, and that the generals and satraps in the upper satrapies, who had suspected that he was determined to depose the kings who inherited from Alexander, would, if he publicly took upon himself the war in their behalf, all change their minds and promptly obey his orders.
You have a demonstrable inability to separate political propaganda from fact. You also have a pronounced habit of ignoring evidence counter to your pre-conceived views as well as fitting 'evidence' to that view. It is a fact that Antigonos resolutely dated his documents in his own name. He was the only Diadoch who is known to have done so prior to the end of the Argead dynasty. Your equating of this with satrapal coinage under the Persian Empire is inapt. Are you really suggesting that had Alexander III lived and Antigonos - or another - was to do date documents of his empire in their own name, it would be viewed as situation normal?

That Antigonos might be the 'moving force' behind the peace treaty of 311 in no way suggests that he was so as to buttress Alexander IV. Nor that he wished to entrench Kassandros in any significant position in Europe. Antigonos had been fighting a coalition on multiple fronts and this cost in men and materiel. He had lost Babylonoia to Seleukos and needed to deal with Ptolemy who, as it turns out, was clever enough to have himself included with the carrot that Seleukos was now isolated and the only protagonist left for Antigonos to deal with. For Antigonos, Kassandros as 'general in Europe' until the majority of Alexander IV was no more binding than any other arrangement these rapacious men came to. This was nothing more than an arrangement of convenience freeing Antigonos to deal with matters in play in Babylonia. Politics first and foremost; propaganda is the dressing.

You also very conveniently ignore the fact that Antigonos, from 319 onwards, is consistently described by our most fulsome source (Diodorus) as having rebelled against the kings harbouring ambitions to rule the empire (see 18 41.4-5, 47.5, 50.1-2 & 5, 54.4, 58.4; 19 55.4-6, 56.2 for example). Before lecturing others about disparaging "the actual evidence to suit yourself by quibbling about 'lack of source criticism', whenever anybody quotes any source evidence that refutes you", you should actually read those sources yourself.

Taphoi wrote:More to the point, Alexander IV and his mother and aunt evidently did not take as much care to hide their views on Cassander and their perspective on the killing of Olympias as Edward III did in respect of the murder of his father by Mortimer. The beautiful proof of how careless they were is the scale and magnificence of the Amphipolis Tomb. I fear that they did not understand that they were thereby resolving Cassander's risk-benefit dilemma in favour of their murder.
Wonderful circularity. This is now your most recent argument for the "royal family" having built this monument for Olympias?

Awaiting your source references for the forces of Kassandros being "barely one fifth" of those available to Antigonos and there is much more to deal with but a skype conference call awaits.
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
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:Events show that Cassander was under threat of invasion and the succession of Alexander's other son, Heracles, should he harm Alexander IV. And Antigonus made good his threat by backing Polyperchon's invasion as soon as the death of Alexander IV was confirmed in 309BC. It came within a whisker of succeeding.
Taphoi wrote:It was a fully fledged popular rebellion with the backing of the most powerful Macedonians and it should have succeeded all else being equal. Cassander probably only managed to quell it at the last minute before a decisive battle through a combination of vicious and ruthless threats and sowing dissension between Polyperchon and Heracles.
You had it right the first time prior to changing your mind. This was no fully fledged "popular rebellion"; that is simply your wishful thinking. This was a political play by Antigonos to remove Kassandros from the board and replace him with one who would, as Kassandros points out, do the bidding of others (Antigonos). This was no pure-blood Argead heir; this was Alexander's bastard by Barsine who was summarily dismissed by the rank and file at Babylon (Curt. 10.6.12):
Nobody liked Nearchus' suggestion [of Herakles]. They repeatedly signaled their opposition in traditional fashion by beating their shields with their spears and, as Nearchus pressed his idea with greater insistence, they came close to rioting.


Further, Polyperchon has come from the Peloponnese where he had remained cloistered in defeat nursing his grievances against Kassandros. He does not have a Macedonian army and recruits along the way including the Aitolian koinon. He does write to his philoi in Greece and Macedon urging them to support him. Nowhere is any uprising against Kassandros in Macedon noted and nowhere does an army of rebellious Macedonians join Polyperchon. It is Kassandros in fact who leads an army from Macedonia to confront Polyperchon. In the end, Polyperchon takes the Antipatrid in hand rather than the Antigonids in the bush and the bastard is dispatched.
Taphoi wrote: Obviously, something was going on to pressurise Polyperchon that we do not know about, because it is not in the sources. I would speculate that Cassander had managed to round up a group of Polyperchon's relatives from Macedonia and threatened to execute them if Polyperchon did not comply. Else he might have threatened to torch Polyperchon's homeland of Tymphaea. Perhaps also Heracles was proving difficult to manage. Teenage kings are wont to threaten people when they don't get their way, which would not have been advisable in the case of Polyperchon. Cassander would have ruthlessly exploited any minor tension between Polyperchon and Heracles.
We finally have speculation called for what it is. Polyperchon was, as Heckel neatly observed, a "jackal among lions". Polyperchon well knew Antigonos' methods (they had been demonstrated over and again) and, as I've said above, took the offer in hand rather than the promise of the One Eye. One certainly doesn't need to conjure the torching of "Polyperchon's homeland of Tymphaea" or any other such terrors. Politics and base practicality.
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
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by agesilaos »

All of the generals that made themselves kings after 306BC pretended that their rule had begun from the death of Alexander.
Paralus has dealt with most things above but this factual error cannot stand.

Of the five Kings we have no evidence for Kassandros or Lysimachos. Antigonos, as we have seen dated his reign from the death of Philip III, Antig.01 being 317/6 throughout his realms; Seleukos initially dated by Alexander IV until 306/5 when a retrospective Seleukid Era was introduced beginning notionally in 311/10 on 1 Dios, ie when he retook Babylon.

Ptolemaic Egypt is much more complex and here alone there is evidence that some dates were reckoned from Ptolemy Soter's initial appointment as satrap in Panemos 323, all from documents late in the reign. A further system reckoned Ptol.01 after Alex.IV 13 in 305/4. :roll:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Taphoi »

It is completely irrelevant to cite evidence concerning Antigonus being seen as acting against the kings in opposing Eumenes BEFORE the death of Olympias against my arguments about the situation AFTER the death of Olympias, when Antigonus became an outspoken royalist again as we see from Diodorus's report of his speech AND his subsequent behaviour.

That Antigonus's forces outnumbered those of his rivals very considerably can be seen from the fact that he took them all on simultaneously not once, but several times.

There is NO contradiction whatsoever between calling the attempt to install Heracles on the throne of Macedon both an invasion and a popular uprising, just as there would be no such contradiction in the case of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

As for quibbling about the precise dates that various kings used as the invented starts of their reigns, it is simply an attempt to evade the point, which is that they all invented dates for the start of their reigns that encompassed the actual reign of Alexander IV, whom they all acknowledged as their king during his reign. So IT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT ANTIGONUS REBELLED AGAINST ALEXANDER IV THAT HE SUBSEQUENTLY DATED THE BEGINNING OF HIS REIGN TO THE PERIOD OF ALEXANDER IV'S ACTUAL REIGN as was pretended above. In fact Agesilaos's quibbling helpfully confirms that the (much later) imagined reign starts have no connection whatsoever with any rebellion against Alexander IV during the actual reign of Alexander IV, so Agesilaos has contributed very nicely to refuting himself. :)

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:It is completely irrelevant to cite evidence concerning Antigonus being seen as acting against the kings in opposing Eumenes BEFORE the death of Olympias against my arguments about the situation AFTER the death of Olympias, when Antigonus became an outspoken royalist again as we see from Diodorus's report of his speech AND his subsequent behaviour.
Really? Just on your say so? I don't think so. I can only assume you've not bothered to read the source evidence cited which is blindingly counter to your credulous thinking. This in no way surprises; rather par for the course. Antigonos is consistently described as being a rebel against the kings; the plural clearly including Alexander IV. Not once but nine times. The distinction you wish to make is what is irrelevant and is merely a distinction of utter convenience. In any case, had you bothered to actually read the cited passages, you will have noted that the last two well post date the death of Olympias. Further, Diodorus notes the distribution of satrapies and replacement of satraps by the rebel Antigonus (19.46.5; 48.1-5; 55.1 for example) with no reference whatsoever to the kings or the central authority. Even worse, the rebel Antigonos systematically pocketed the moneys and treasures from every treasury throughout Asia (19.46.6; 48.5-8; 56.5) on his return west (some 40,000 talents none of which were ever sent to the king) just as he said he would do prior to Olympias' death (18.50.2-3 & 5):
Already hopefully aspiring to the supreme power, he decided to take orders neither from the kings nor from their guardians; for he took it for granted that he himself, since he had a better army, would gain possession of the treasures of all Asia, there being no one able to stand against him. 3 For at that time he had sixty thousand foot-soldiers, ten thousand horsemen, and thirty elephants; and in addition to these he expected to make ready other forces also if there should be need, since Asia could provide pay without end for the mercenaries he might muster [...] 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.


The picture is, unfortunately for your credulous view, unremittingly consistent. Something you might see if you actually read the cited material rather than insisting on it being irrelevant simply because they are rather discombobulating for your preferred view. It is beyond question that the appointment of satraps and the removal of others without any reference to the central authority is acting as arbiter of the empire. Even more so the wholesale appropriation of the royal treasuries to his own ends. One wonders just how Alexander III might have viewed such devotion to the throne. You really need to read outside of your historical fiction paradigm.

Even were your distinction to hold (and it does not), are we then to assume that while Olympias was alive Antigonos was a rebel to Alexander IV only to undergo a conversion having returned west via the road to Damascus after her death? Do we believe his hand on heart proclamation at Tyre or his words and source description prior to Olympias' death? His actions speak louder than his words as demonstrated above. Propaganda is exactly that.

Taphoi wrote:That Antigonus's forces outnumbered those of his rivals very considerably can be seen from the fact that he took them all on simultaneously not once, but several times.
Evidence for Kassandros fielding "barely a fifth" of Antigonos' forces please?
Taphoi wrote:There is NO contradiction whatsoever between calling the attempt to install Heracles on the throne of Macedon both an invasion and a popular uprising, just as there would be no such contradiction in the case of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Only in your world. Can you please provide the source attestations for the popular uprising in Macedonia against Kassandros at this time?
Last edited by Paralus on Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by agesilaos »

I suppose when you get a calculation completely wrong it would be ‘quibbling’ to point out the errors? :lol: :lol: LOL

The point which still eludes you, is that Antigonos excised Alexander IV from his dating while the former ‘ruled’ not in some fiction later. When you said Alexander unqualified I had assumed AtG, but it seems you meant Aegus and thus your statement was completely wrong. I shall of course continue to quibble as long as you continue to be factually incorrect or your 'analysis' facile. I predict that there will be much quibbling to come :(

The ’45, is actually not a bad analogy, Bonnie Prince Charlie landed from France failed to gain the support of the Lowland Scots or the English Jacobites was abandoned by Louis XV and crushed after a fruitless invasion of England at Culloden whence even the Highlanders were deserting. But maybe this is another piece of History that had escaped you?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:...I shall of course continue to quibble... I predict that there will be much quibbling to come :(
What fun :D
agesilaos wrote:The ’45, is actually not a bad analogy, Bonnie Prince Charlie landed from France failed to gain the support of the Lowland Scots or the English Jacobites was abandoned by Louis XV and crushed after a fruitless invasion of England at Culloden whence even the Highlanders were deserting. But maybe this is another piece of History that had escaped you?
Bonnie Prince Charlie got as far south as Derbyshire. If he had not been forced to retreat by the more pusillanimous of his supporters (and NOT by military force) he could well have taken London, especially if the French had bothered simultaneously to invade. It may seem minor in retrospect, but it was a close-run thing. The Hanoverians got an awful shock and British history could have been quite different.
Best wishes,
Andrew
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Xenophon »

Taphoi wrote:
It attracted huge numbers to the banner of Heracles.
It was a fully fledged popular rebellion with the backing of the most powerful Macedonians and it should have succeeded all else being equal.
.... the attempt to place Heracles on the throne was a popular uprising. It is self-evident from the fact that Polyperchon managed to assemble a large enough army actually to invade Macedon and confront Cassander on behalf of Alexander's son.
Presumably by “huge numbers” you are referring to the fact that Polyperchon’s non-Macedonian army, made up of Peloponnesians, mercenaries and Aetolians, was said to number some 20,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry [ Diod XX.20.3] – and probably the bulk of these will have been the army of the Aetolian league.

“Popular uprising” means a rebellion by the general population, or at least a significant portion of it. Paralus is entirely right to point out that not only was there no ‘popular uprising’, but no uprising at all, not even from the erstwhile philoi/friends Polyperchon wrote to and doubtless attempted to bribe. There is no evidence that any of "the most powerful Macedonians" came out in support of Polyperchon - it is the product of an over active imagination!

Nor could there be such a thing as a ‘popular uprising’, for no such thing existed in the ancient Mediterranean world. There was no Media to inform the general population of events or what was going on, nor did any organisation capable of arranging a ‘popular uprising’ exist. To use this sort of terminology demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand ancient societies generally, and Macedonia’s in particular. A village might hear of past events from passing travellers and suchlike, but ‘Kassander’ or ‘Polyperchon’ were largely just names to the populace, who knew little or nothing about them beyond seeing their likenesses on coinage, or learning of some general proclamation. Their loyalties were to their mountain valley communities, or their urban civic ones – i.e clan and tribal loyalties, and the local aristocrats in charge of them. It was these men the general population followed in their ignorance, whomever they chose to support – in this case Kassander. There was no ‘popular’ anything throughout Macedon. Furthermore, there was considerable uncertainty as to whether ‘Heracles’ really was a bastard of Alexander’s or just some pretender produced by Antigonus ( as argued by Tarn and others). Nor did Polyperchon and his foreign army actually invade Macedon, but got no further than the mountainous Tymphaeum region in Eastern Epirus, where he was confronted by Cassander and the Macedonian army. [not the other way around: Diod XX.28 ff]]
There is NO contradiction whatsoever between calling the attempt to install Heracles on the throne of Macedon both an invasion and a popular uprising, just as there would be no such contradiction in the case of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
This merely shows that your knowledge of 18 C British history is as poor as your general knowledge of Macedonian and Hellenistic history. Ironically, your analogy is an apt one however, for there was no ‘popular uprising’ in favour of Charles Stuart either!! Instead the ’45 rebellion was the last sputter of the civil war between Stuarts and Hanoverians, which had been long lost – and cemented by the Act of Union between England and Scotland of 1707. Only the mad Stuarts with their dreams could not see this, and the more fanatical of those who followed ‘the Old Religion’ ( Catholicism) which they believed the Stuarts would restore. The analogy between mountainous Macedon and mountainous Scotland is perhaps not unreasonable, but even in the Highlands, supposedly solidly Jacobite, only a small minority were foolish enough to ‘come out’. Charles’ few supporters wrote to him, saying that only if he brought an army of 6,000 Frenchmen, arms for 10,000 men, and at least 30,000 pounds in gold could they hope to raise support. Louis XV knew the cause was hopeless but was not averse to a cheap gamble if by a miracle the Stuarts might succeed. Thus Charles set off with two ships, [one of which was intercepted] 4,000 pounds and a token ‘French’ force of a few hundred Scots and Irish mercenaries. His supporters were aghast. The rebellion was doomed before it had even started. The few Highland chiefs who followed Charles called out their clans, who were indifferent at best ( just like the Macedonian populace in ‘Heracles’ cause ) very reluctant at worst. The MacDonalds, who belonged to the ‘Old Religion’ were foremost in coming out, and an ancestor of mine, Alexander McDonnell of Keppoch, like most of the rebel chiefs, raised his clan by the simple expedient of threatening to burn the thatch over the heads of the crofters if the men failed to turn out. Like many others, he would die at Culloden, shot through both legs and crying out that the men of his clan had deserted him – rather unfairly. Charles’ army never numbered more than 7,000 Highlanders, Lowlanders, Irishmen, Englishmen conscripted deserters and prisoners of war, and the sweepings of gaols. This from a potential of over 30,000 Highlanders alone. More would fight for King George than against him, and the government held most of Scotland throughout. Despite the “Bonny Prince Charlie” myth, there was absolutely no ‘popular uprising’ in his favour, though he did do rather better than Polyperchon, who raised no Macedonians at all ! His native tongue was Italian and he spoke poor English, and no Gaelic . For those who want to learn the truth behind the myth, I suggest “Culloden” by John Prebble as an objective view. For an excellent detailed military account, I suggest “Like Hungry Wolves” by Stuart Reid.
Bonnie Prince Charlie got as far south as Derbyshire. If he had not been forced to retreat by the more pusillanimous of his supporters (and NOT by military force) he could well have taken London, especially if the French had bothered simultaneously to invade. It may seem minor in retrospect, but it was a close-run thing.
This is another gross distortion of History! Charles reached Derby in the Midlands because he was completely unopposed on his march , but his ragtag army shrank every day they moved south, many Highlanders going home with a plaid full of plunder from defenceless towns and villages. At Derby they were confronted by the Duke of Cumberland, with a British army of troops containing many veterans brought home from the war in Flanders. Their rear and flank was threatened by another British army under Wade. There was no choice but to return north, or be crushed in the jaws of a pincer, so it was indeed 'Military Force' that left no option but retreat. The only 'close-run thing' was that Charles and his army escaped. In fact, buoyed by Charles’ surprising initial success ( though it was illusory) the French did indeed propose to invade, and Cumberland was distracted by this seeming threat which allowed Charles a good head start. There was never any prospect of ‘taking London’ – the London militias alone vastly outnumbered Charles, and the idea that the doomed invasion was a ‘close-run thing’ is demonstrably laughable. As to pusillanimity, as Charles left the stricken field of Culloden, a voice yelled after him "There ye go! Run, ye damned cowardly Italian!" This was widely believed to have been Lord Elcho, commander of Charles' Lifeguards.
Taphoi wrote:More to the point, Alexander IV and his mother and aunt evidently did not take as much care to hide their views on Cassander and their perspective on the killing of Olympias as Edward III did in respect of the murder of his father by Mortimer. The beautiful proof of how careless they were is the scale and magnificence of the Amphipolis Tomb. I fear that they did not understand that they were thereby resolving Cassander's risk-benefit dilemma in favour of their murder.
So it was the boy-King Alexander IV and his mother, the Bactrian Roxanne - both closely guarded prisoners -who are supposedly behind the construction of the kastas tomb for Olympias, supported by Aunt Thessalonike, wife of Kassander? Thessalonike demonstrably had no political influence we are aware of until after the death of Kassander, and the idea that this group could have built, or had built such a tomb is simply beyond credibility. For almost two years you have put forward your ''Olympias" theory, which has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Does the fact that in all that time you seemingly do not seem to have convinced a single soul here on Pothos not tell you something?
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:... but it seems you meant Aegus and thus your statement was completely wrong. I shall of course continue to quibble as long as you continue to be factually incorrect or your 'analysis' facile. I predict that there will be much quibbling to come :(
Since it seems we are to do some more quibbling (nodding curt bows in the directions of Xenophon and Paralus), there is no such person as "Aegus". It is a modern misnomer for Alexander IV based on misreading "Alexander allou" (i.e. "another Alexander") as "Alexander aigou" in the manuscript of the Astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy. :) Still, no need to be rude and obnoxious by calling your scholarship factually incorrect and facile, eh?
Best wishes,
Andrew
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by agesilaos »

Since it seems we are to do some more quibbling (nodding curt bows in the directions of Xenophon and Paralus), there is no such person as "Aegus". It is a modern misnomer for Alexander IV based on misreading "Alexander allou" (i.e. "another Alexander") as "Alexander aigou" in the manuscript of the Astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy. Still, no need to be rude and obnoxious by calling your scholarship factually incorrect and facile, eh?

You are really having a bad time picking your battlefields, old boy following the ill considered analogies we now have this

It is certainly a bold assertion that ‘there is no such person as “Aegus”’; that stems from The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, under Alexander III
His son by Roxana, the so-called ALEXANDER ``AEGUS,'' was born a few months later. He and his uncle Philip, as joint kings, were placed under the guardianship of Perdiccas, Peithon and Antipater in succession. After the death of Antipater (319) Roxana fled with him to Epirus, and was afterwards taken back to Macedonia, together with Olympias, by Polyperchon. All three fell into the hands of Cassander; Alexander and his mother were in 310-309 put to death by order of Cassander (Justin xiv. 6, xv. 2). The meaningless surname of Aegus, still given in some books to this Alexander, is derived simply from a modern misreading of the text of the Astronomical Canon, AIGOU for ALLOU.
Which reference was given by Amyntoros on this very forum in response to a question of yours (reply 10 Oct 2005 ‘To Add More Confusion’: question;
Alexander IV Aegos


Postby Taphoi » 09 Oct 2005 06:15 am
Hopefully someone will be able to post exactly why Alexander IV is sometimes called Aegos (or Aegus or Aegeus...). Presumably, this means Alexander of Aegae rather than Alexander the Goat? The most obvious reason would be a Greek initiative to publicise the discovery of his probable cremated remains in Tomb III at Vergina. It is not used by most scholars, but it is used in a few scholarly articles. Does anyone know any ancient refs to Alexander Aegos? Does anyone know of any uses of it that antedate 1978? (I'm a bit surprised at the difficulty of finding information on this point.)Best wishes,Andrew
It further crops up on page184 of ‘Alexander’s Lovers’ thus
‘Alexander IV is also sometimes called Alexander Aegus or Aegos or Aegeos in modern works. This appears to be an error deriving from a modern misreading of aigou for allou in the manuscript of the Astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy. Thus “another Alexander” was transcribed as “Alexander Aegus”
.

Here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0Ju ... us&f=false
Were you being ‘scholarly’ then you could not fail to reference the Enc.Brit as your source, passing other people’s work of as your own is the ultimate sin; but let’s not jump to conclusions; presumably you can point to the misread manuscript or at the very least the scholarly article (which should really have been referenced, of course) wherein this gem was found.

‘Modern’ is a somewhat misleading term, there is a clear reference in 1722 to Aegus here

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Mjc ... us&f=false


Breviarium Chronologicum: Or, A Treatise Describing the Terms and Most ...
By Aegidius Strauch


Such terms are elastic.

In summary your counter quibble does indeed appear to be ‘factually innaccurate’ - the misreading theory is unsupported by evidence; ‘facile’ taking someonelse’s opinion uncritically can only be so described.

Pointing out the faults possessed is hardly rude nor obnoxious. Just for the record the Greeks did not use numbers either nor I think would any modern not understand ‘Aegus’ to be Alexander IV, even you did; surely some variety is not to fall foul of an ill-judged precision?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:Of course it was possible for the Royal Family to use their still considerable political leverage to get Cassander to acquiesce to their construction of a tomb for Olympias and it would have been a priority for them to show that they still had such leverage. They would have been able to get contributions from all the generals (which is a possible explanation for the ANT monograms on the peribolos itself). Cassander probably did not think it was worth trying to prevent them.
This is a most credulous view and can only be sustained by what is fast becoming a faith-based belief in a 'theory'. For the record, the seven year old heir was a prisoner - stripped of all royal trappings and reduced to a common Macedonian (ἰδιώτου) - along with his barbarian mother. His grandmother was dead at Pydna. Aiakides had been thrown out of his kingdom by an Epirus allied with Kassandros. His aunt, Kleopatra, was Antigonos' 'house guest' and that dynast had just returned west having appropriated for himself all the royal treasuries of the Asian empire. None of these people were in any position to coerce the ruler of Macedon to do anything. Antigonos, well financed by the seven year old Alexander's treasuries, could not coerce Kassandros to do anything. That leaves the last desperate cotton thread in this fanciful fiction, Thessalonike. Far from marrying this woman to seek a fictitious rapprochement with the royal family, this union was an entirely political play to establish legitimacy for Kassandros as the Macedonian ruler. Nothing more, nothing less. Thessalonike had no attachment to Olympias other than the fact that Philip II sired her upon another woman. It is unlikely in the extreme that Thessalonike, who will have had absolutely no say in the wedding, then pressured Kassandros for a tomb for Olympias.
Taphoi wrote:Until he saw that the tomb was of such magnificence as to suit a goddess rather than a mere queen and realised that it meant that her family would never really forgive him for her killing and that he and his family would be in mortal peril, should Alexander IV come of age and seize control of the army.
Really? Kassandros - ruthless and cynical - is so completely lacking in basic intelligence as to fail to understand that the (remaining) family would never forgive the murder of the matriarch and the imprisonment of the heir, stripped of all royal trappings, along with his mother? This, along with the above, belongs on the 'historical fiction' shelves.
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
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Cassander (and Olympias)

Post by Xenophon »

.....or perhaps more accurately, the 'fictional history' shelves. :lol: :lol:

....generally historical fiction is based on known history, which it sticks to, and fills in the unknown gaps with fiction in order to produce a coherent account. Taphoi's versions on the other hand simply 'make up' the supposed history...... :roll:
Post Reply