children of Alexander

[nick]

I would like to add a new "Children" section to pothos.org. Please help fill in the gaps if you have some time to spare...Herakles
The first (?) child of Alexander - by his mistress Barsine. Barsine (widow of Memnon) was captured in Damascus in fall 333 BC after Issus. Herakles was born in 327 BC (?) or 324 BC (?) and where (?). He lived where (?). Died during the successor wars - when (?) and where (?). Killed by (?)Queen Statira's son
Queen Statira, wife of Darius III, died before Gaugamela but was captured at Issus. Did she die in childbirth (?) or during pregnancy (?). I suppose the possibility that Alexander was the father of the stillborn infant can not be dismissed without room for doubt.Alexander
Alexander's alleged, most probably mythical son by Queen Cleophis of Massaga, India. Conceived in winter/spring 327/326 BC, born in fall 326 BC (?) - if this rare story is true anyway...Roxane's first child
Perhaps the first child of Alexander and Roxane was a girl (?), born in the Indus Valley in 326 or 325 BC (?), but died soon after childbirth (?). The source for this tale is (?).Roxane's second child
Roxane's second (?) child, a boy, Alexander IV, was born after Alexander's death in Mesopotamia (?). Fall of 323 BC (?). Moved to Macedonia, killed by Cassander together with (?) Roxane and (?) Olympias in 315 BC (?).Princess Statira's child
Statira, wife of Alexander, was murdered by Roxane with help from Perdiccas (or the other way round) in 323 BC soon after Alexander's death. Where (?). Statira was pregnant (?).And what about this strange story about an abandoned child born at the Indus, from a slave girl. I heard that once or twice. True (?). Source (?).Thanks a myriad for your help.Regards -
Nick

[amyntoros]

Hello Nick:There's a few details on Herakles and Alexander IV in Justin. He doesn't say when Herakles was born, but at the time of Alexander's death he says: "or if they wished for a boy, there was at Pergamus a son of Alexander by Barsine, named Hercules..." So Herakles must have lived at that time at Pergamus and then presumably was sent to Macedon because Justin puts him with Olympias at the time of her death. "Hearing therefore of the approach of Cassander, and distrusting the Macedonians, she retired, with her daughter-in-law Roxane, and her grandson Hercules, to the city of Pydna (where she was killed)"Herakles' death is shown after Cassander returned from Apollonia and made the Antariatae his allies. "Afterwards, lest Hercules, the son of Alexander, who had nearly completed his fourteenth year, should be called to the throne of Macedonia through the influence of his father's name, he (Cassander) sent secret orders that he should be put to death, together with his mother Barsine, and that their bodies should be privately buried in the earth lest the murder should be betrayed by a regular funeral." Then, regarding Roxane and Alexander IV, the next line says: "As if, too, he had previously incurred but small guilt, first in the case of the king himself, and afterwards in that of his mother Olympias and her son, he cut off his other son, and his mother Roxane, with similar treachery; as though he could not obtain the throne of Macedonia, to which he aspired, otherwise than by crime."So Roxane and Alexander IV died later than Olympias and they must have been killed at Amphipolis, because after the death of Olympias, Justin says: "After these events, Cassander married Thessalonice, the daughter of king Aridaeus, and sent the son of Alexander with his mother to the citadel of Amphipolis, to be kept under guard." (The notes to my translation say he is referring to Roxane here and not Barsine.)Best regards,Linda Ann

[susan]

1. HeraklesThe confusion of dates is because Justin seems to muddle the two. He has both Herakles & Alexander IV as 14 when they died, and Herakles being with Olympias - but this is wrong; Diodorus is more reliable. According to him, Herakles was 17 when he died, around 309, which would have made his birth around 327-6. He was at Pergamon with his mother in 323, but there's no information where he was earlier - was he with the court and sent to Pergamum just before Alexander started on the Arabian expedition ? There's no mention until he's summoned to Macedonia by Polyperchon in 309, after the death of Alexander IV. The army started to show some interest in him, as he was the last remaining Argead, so Cassander persuaded Polyperchon to murder him. He was apparently strangled after a banquet.2. Cleophis' child - there are other tales of Alexander fathering children on Indian princesses. The Malay annals has him fathering a son on ShahruGÇÖl-Bariyah, daughter of Raja Kida Hindi ; the son is left behind in India as Alexander has long since gone.3. Roxane's child - I think that the only reference, Metz Epitome 70, refers just to a child that dies shortly after birth, somewhere in India.4. Alexander IV - at Alexander's death Roxane was either 6 months (Curtius 10.6.9) or 8 months (Justin 13.2.5) pregnant. Olympias died in 316, Roxane & Alexander IV were imprisoned in Amphipolis, whose commander was Glaucias.They were killed by Glaucias on Cassander's orders, proably in 310.5.Stateira was murdered in Babylon, probably June 323; she'd been summoned there after Alexander's death. I think Parysatis went with her as well, rather than Drypetis, and was also murdered then.6. Child of slave girl - I've never heard of this
Susan

[jona]

Maybe it's relevant to note that Alexander IV is never called king in the cuneiform sources, although the western tradition says that the baby was immediately recognized as king.Yet, Babylonian letters are always dated to the regnal years of Philip Arrhidaeus; after his death, Babylonian letters start to be dated to the regnal years of Alexander, but as far as I know, there's always an addition like "and Antigonus the strategos in Asia" (or Seleucus, of course).My point is that Alexander/Roxane never played an important role.Jona

[amyntoros]

Re. Roxanes first child - you are right, it is in the Metz Empitome (70) which says it was a boy. I found this in Heckel's Alexander the Great, Historical Sources in Translation, Very useful book! "There he found the ships which Porus and Taxiles had built, 800 biremes and 300 store-ships, and he put on board crews and provisions. In the meantime Alexander's son by Roxane died."You cleared some things up regarding Herakles in Justin - thanks. I thought Justin seemed confused, but my copy is so old (1872) and the translator, the Rev. John Selby Watson, doesn't seem to notice the discrepancies. Is the later book of Diordorus online - the one after Alexander's death? I can't seem to find it.Best regards,Linda Ann

[nick]

I added the article. Thanks so much for your help. If you think the article needs improvement, please post a reply.Best regards -Nick

[alejandro]

Hello allI donGÇÖt know you, but every time I hear about Herakles I find myself rather puzzled by his absence in the succession struggle. Yes, I know that he was only half-Macedonian and, even more, he wasnGÇÖt a GÇ£legalGÇ¥ heir as Alexander IV was. There is also the story that the assembly of soldiers that acclaimed Arrhidaios after Alexander died refused considering him, even though his uncle (?) Nearchos proposed him as a suitable candidate for kingship.I am surprised by the total lack of records about his life until he is used as a puppet by the Diadochi, but even more by the survival of such a powerful player as Nearchos as a prot+¬g+¬ of Antigonos (and before that, of Perdikkas, I think). That is, I can imagine the One-eyed to have found him (and his nephew) a useful weapon in terms of strategy, but a very dangerous one too. Even more, Nearchos was one of the advisors of Demetrios that Antigonos appointed to guide him and teach him the art of kingship. WasnGÇÖt that too risky? True, Monophthalmos did use Herakles eventually to destabilise Cassandros (if I remember well, it was a retaliation to CassandrosGÇÖ treason), and got a two-fold reward by doing it: he got rid of an important player in the succession game (not in real, political terms, but in terms of the title of GÇ£AlexanderGÇÖs sonGÇ¥ that Herakles arrogated to himself) and manoeuvred to keep Cassandros at bay. All very clever, but why didnGÇÖt Nearchos do anything then? Actually, why didnGÇÖt he do anything before? He actually became a GÇ£second-levelGÇ¥ actor in the big stage, without throwing a single punch (well, maybe just one: the above mentioned in the assembly in Babylon). I know he didnGÇÖt have the power of a Perdikkas, a Ptolemy or an Antigonos, but he must have had considerable power anyway, didnGÇÖt he? DidnGÇÖt he get a satrapy in Asia Minor as a result of the Babylon agreement?I probably messed up the facts I mentioned above: moved them to different years or something like that. I donGÇÖt remember the exact chronology. I apologize in advance. But still, I find NearchosGÇÖ (and HeraklesGÇÖ) sudden appearances and disappearances a bit odd.Could anyone please clarify why this happened?Thank you allAlejandro

[nick]

I think Beth Carney (Women and Monarchy in Macedonia) points out the issue real fine.Barsine, daughter of Persian satrap Artabazus, the mother of Herakles, stayed with Alexander from 333 BC at least until 327 BC - but never married.Carney points out that from the Persian point of view, this liaison was part of their formal court insitutions. Barsine was not recognized as the *wife* of King Alexander, but at least as a (kind of official) "woman of the king". To the Persians this was quite an acceptable place within the court circles. The Macedonians did not recognize or understand such a concept. To them, either the king married you, or you were a "concubine" or "mistress" with no 'royal' status whatsoever. The Persians however, acknowledged that Barsine's position was a quite desirable one *somewhere in the middle* between wife and concubine.To the Macedonians, recognizing Barsine's and Herakles' position, would have been a bow in favor of the Persian code of conduct. They'd rather not have it that way.I tend to agree with Carney's explanation, especially because scholars recently have pointed out that the position of women in the Achaemenid court was much more subtle and refined than within the Argead house.Best regards -Nick

[alejandro]

Hi NickCertainly your explanation makes sense. Thank you for that.On the other hand, if Macedonians were so uncomfortable with non-royal mistresses, why was Ptolemy so interested in saying that he was PhilipGÇÖs bastard? Or was it the case that they were only concerned about these legal issues when the mistress was a non-Macedonian? Or was just something that suited their political agendas at the moment (namely, eliminating a powerful competitor in the succession struggle)?BestAlejandro

[susan]

They knew enough about genetics to know that you could inherit some of your father's abilities & talents, even if you didn't inherit his name & rank as he hadn't married your mother. Since
Ptolemy's father seems to have been unimportant, he could only benefit from a link to Philip. Seleucos allowed it to thought that he was Poseidon's son.Susan

[alejandro]

Hi SusanYes, all very understandable. But using your argument weGÇÖre back at square one: why was Herakles so easily brushed aside of the succession contest? If he was truly AlexanderGÇÖs son, the soldiers could make exactly the same inference you made and realize that he could inherit his fatherGÇÖs abilities and talents.NickGÇÖs points can explain Macedonian disdain for Persian nobility (in fact most of the Diadochi repudiated their Persian wifes after AlexGÇÖs death), but I think the main reason was political, not ideological or intended to keep GÇ£good oleGÇ¥ Macedonian traditions (notice that the only Diadochos that retained his Persian wife, Seleukos, had been allocated an Iranian satrapy, so it was useful for his future career to keep strong ties with the local nobility).But even accepting the political angle is the true reason for this behaviour, why such a powerful figure as Nearchos settled for a rather secondary role throughout the whole process? AlexanderGÇÖs reknowned boyhood friend, famous admiral, no records of disputes with other marshals (quite a feat!), married to the sister of the kingGÇÖs mistress (I think), got a satrapy in Asia Minor in the Babylon settlement (Karia?). Too many GÇ£plusesGÇ¥ compared to rather lesser GÇ£minusesGÇ¥ (his sister-in-law had no royal status, other players GÇôPerdikkas, Krateros, Ptolemy, Antipater- seemed to have bigger chances of succeding the Great/grabbing the regency). Why the silence after that timid bark in Babylon proposing his nephew? Why submit first to Perdikkas then to Antigonos? I still wonderGǪKind regardsAlejandro

[xxx]

Nearkos was not that powerful as indicated by the fact he suggested Herakles as heir, and no wonder because he was blood related. The point is, the generals were not interested in any heir - they were interested in ruling the empire. And they certainly did not have to consider Herakles as he was not legitimate. Alexander IV was not yet born and therefore presented no problem at the time. The problem came with Arrhidaos - he was legitimate, but no one thought that anyone would really want Arrhidaos as King - he was not competent. A bad miscalculation by Perdikkas, or rather, he overestimated his own popularity and ignored the Macedonian belief in tradition, which in foreign lands became only the stronger much to Alexander's dismay - that that only an Argead could lead the Macedonians to victory. However, Arrhidaeos could be 'controlled' and was, in fact, for the rest of his life the pawn of others. That is why Alexander did not leave him in Pella.Regards,Tre PS Ptolemy may have been the illegitimate offspring of Philip. His status at court was high enough for Philip to allow him to be part of Alexander's ciricle and I should emphasize, it was Philip who chose who surrounded his son - and influential enough Philip exiled him from the Kingdom. However, he would never have been considered for King since Philip had legitimte heir(s) - the s if you believe Justin and his comment "the many sons of Philip." But again, because he was illegitimate, he would not have been considered as King when Alexander died - certainly no better prospects than any of the other generals.

[xxx]

But of course Ptolemy emphasized this relationship so that he could further legitimize his own plans for Pharoah by being half brother to the previous Pharoah. Macedonians still had to resolve their own Macedonian beliefs with those of other lands. When Perdikkas attempted to arrange a marriage with Alexander's sister and therefore be Argead by proxy, it was seen as a direct threat to the other generals that he was making a bid to be ruler over them and that would not be tolerated. Cassander married a half-sister of Alexander for exactly the same reasons - to become part of the Argead clan and therefore by right, have control over Alexander IV by becoming his Uncle. And when Ptolemy tried to do same with Alexander's sister, she was murdered by Antigonus for those very same reasons of blood.

[agesilaos]

The salient point about Nearchos is that he was Greek, reference to the career of Eumenes would have shown how the Macedonians felt about Greeks. Similarly, his power base was presumably in the fleet which was almost exclusively foreign and therefore outside the world of Macedonian politics, it had no voice as it contained no Macedones.

[alejandro]

Very good point KarlI had forgotten this GÇ£negligibleGÇ¥ detail of being non-Macedonian. Certainly EumenesGÇÖ career shows that ability and guile were not enough to survive in those tumultuous times, but you needed also to be Macedonian.Best wishesAlejandro