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.