Cassander as regent (continued)

[abm]

Hi Tre,allow me to react again.As I said, Cassander was with Alexander at the crossing of the Hellespont. After that he could have left for Macedon at any given time between 334 and 324. You assume it to be unlikely that he stayed with Alexander for a long time, but how can you know if it isn't mentionned in the sources. I don't remember Adams' arguments and I have no time to check them now, but the article is 'Cassander and the Crossing of the Hellespont: Diodorus 17, 17, 4', in Ancient World 2 (1979), pp. 111-115, if you would like check it yourself. Anyhow, Cassander's absence from the sources is not a sound argument. We don't hear a thing about Seleukos before the battle of the Hydaspes. Does this mean he came falling from the sky a that time or only that the sources just focus on Alexander and aren't very interested in his generals. It is evidenlty for the second reason and for the same reason we know hardly anything about Lysimachus before 323. In fact we don't even know much about him before 313 and this certainly doesn't mean that he didn't play an important role before that date; it does mean that we don't have enough sources. Thus Cassander's absence from the sources does not allow us to conclude that he must have returned immediately after the crossing of the Hellespont.My point was not that it was probable that Olmympias and Eurydike would have worked together, but that the royal house itself was also responsible for its own demise and, as your own argument shows, they were indeed murdering each other from long before the Diadochoi came into the picture. I have already referred to Alexander's role in this in a previous post.You still haven't made clear that Polyperchons appointment by Anitpatros means that Antipatros didn't really like his son, rather than that Antipatros thought that men like Antigonos would obey rather to someone of the elder generation like Polyperchon. As i said, the fact that he did appoint him chiliarch to Antigonos at Triparadeisos and to Polyperchon before his death shows very clearly that Antipatros did trust his son. In spite of the view held by many scholars, Polyperchon's appointment also shows Antipatros' genuine concern for the empire.I still don't see how the argument about the behaviour of his sons shows anything about Cassander himself. Just like many of their contemporaries and predecessors they were blinded by their lust for power. The Argead family had a longstanding tradition of power st

[abm]

I still don't see how the argument about the behaviour of his sons shows anything about Cassander himself. Just like many of their contemporaries and predecessors they were blinded by their lust for power. The Argead family had a longstanding tradition of power struggle among brothers and killing relatives. I found the passage you referred to in Fox (I think) (p. 475): GÇ£Most ruthless of AntipaterGÇÖs children, Cassander disgraced a brother and sister who had nothing to do with him; his brother founded a drop-out community on Mount Athos and his sister alone stood out in these savage times, defending the innocent and helping penniless couples to get married at her own expense.GÇ¥ First of all, there is no footnote, so one is left to guess on what evidence this is based. Secondly, I think it is very clear that FoxGÇÖ description of the age of the Diadochoi is a very dramatic and even apocalyptic account; one really gets the impression that the end of the world was near. It this context, the quoted passage about Cassander and his sister, who GÇ£alone stood outGÇ¥, of course adds up to the drama. It is very strange that many scholars assume we can not trust Curtius, just because his account is very rhetorical. Rhetoric was very normal for historians in Antiquity: it was there education. Nowadays, a historian learns to write in an objective style. In my opinion, it is thus very strange that Fox writes his chapter on the diadochoi this way and it isnGÇÖt really inspiring confidence (especially in the absence of footnotes). Now, on the contents of the passage: I know nothing about a GÇ£drop-out community on Mount AthosGÇ¥ (IGÇÖm in the middle of my exams now, but afterwards I will check it and come back on this). What he says about Phila, CassanderGÇÖs sister and DemetriosGÇÖ wife, is based on the eulogy of Phila in Diodorus XIX 59.3-6. This was probably written by Hieronymus of Cardia, who is praising the mother of his patron Antigonos Gonatas. This is not to say it is all untrue, because some of it certainly is true, but one has to be carefull. More importantly, this text doesnGÇÖt mention the nature of her relationship with Cassander, neither does any other source explicitly do so. We know however that at a given moment Demetrios sent Phila to Cassander to negotiate with him (I should check time and reference; I donGÇÖt know it by heart). It is evident that Demetrios expected that Cassander could be influenced by his sister, and thus very unlikely that she had nothing to do with hi

[abm]

It is evident that Demetrios expected that Cassander could be influenced by his sister, and thus very unlikely that she had nothing to do with him or even hated him.Admiration and contempt aren't good guides in reconstructing the past, but, no offense, i have the impression you are lead too much by your admiration for Alexander and your despise for the Diadochoi, as you have stated yourself: GÇ£I have said on this Forum several times, I am not much of a fan of the DiadochiGÇ¥.regards, abm

[marcus]

Hi Alexander,A very interesting 3-part post.I'm not very knowledgable about Cassander, but would certainly like to come back to you with some thoughts about his non-attendance during the campaign.You are quite right, of course, that absence of mention in the sources is not proof that he wasn't with the army all the time in Asia (apart from having to return to Macedonia at some point in order to come out again). However, considering he became a major player after Alexander's death, it would be more surprising were he there on campaign and not mentioned at all. There are two reasons for this:1. As Antipater's son it is unlikely that he would not have been given some command or other by Alexander, purely from the point of view of keeping Antipater sweet. He showed later that he was perfectly capable. Therefore one might reasonably expect him to have one or two mentions.2. As all the extant historians wrote considerably after the Diadochoi period, you would expect them to have *something* to say about Cassander prior to his arrival in Babylon in 324/3. Seleucus, despite being mentioned first only in Bk V of Arrian, is Seleucus "who became king"; and Lysimachus didn't really do much until 325BC - although he was a somatophylax, which gave him some more justification for mention.These two points certainly aren't proof that Cassander *didn't* go on the entire expedition; however, I think they go some way to providing serious doubt that he *did*.All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

I will reply to this when I get home from work.'Admiration and contempt aren't good guides in reconstructing the past,'No, but using logic, understanding the ancient world and human nature is. Burying your nose in a book will never teach you that. Regards,Tre

[amyntoros]

I'm sticking my nose in again in what promises to be another interesting debate. You said:"No, but using logic, understanding the ancient world and human nature is. Burying your nose in a book will never teach you that."I won't argue that logic should play a part in any assessment of history. As far as understanding human nature goes, being a scholar or of a scholary bent doesn't necessarily preclude someone from having that understanding. But as for burying one's nose in a book, or many books for that matter - how else would any of us gain an understanding of the ancient world? We're not born with that kind of insight, now are we? :-)Whoah. I'm having a serious case of deja vu here. Have we had this discussion before?Best regards,Linda Ann

[xxx]

Hello Alexander:So what you're saying is, if I don't buy into the Alexander is evil contingent of modern scholarship somehow my views are not valid?Marcus pretty much said what I would have about Cassander not being on campaign. Since he became King of Macedon, it is highly unlikely we would never have heard about Cassander's contributions to Alexander's victories or insults thereof. And there's no logic to him being with Alexander, then being sent back to Macedon, then coming back out again to plead his father's case. More likely Antipater wanted to keep him alive and the best way to do that was to keep him away from Alexander until he had little choice but to send him to the King so he wouldn't have to go. In typical Macedonian fashion, it is everyone for themselves.About Antipater and Cassander - you seem to think Cassander was too young. He was well into adulthood when his father died. Antipater passed over him for a reason and I think it was because Antipater knew Cassander had royal aspirations. There was definitely something 'wrong' with Cassander. And I'm not even going to get into how bad it must have been that he picked Polyperchon whose great worth would be proven by future events. The only other possible reason would be his son was incompetent and by your own admission, that would not be the case.The sons - Argeads generally killed half brothers who would make an attempt at the throne. Note Amyntas' three boys out of Eurydice didn't kill each other. But Cassander's kids were pretty twisted even for Argeads. Does it reflect upon Cassander? You pay your money and make your own choice.And to be fair you have changed what you said about the Argeads wiping themselves out from your first post. I merely explained why they didn't work together. It was Cassander, not the Argeads, who killed the last legitimate heir.Poor Phila and that's all I'm going to say. Her son must have felt for her.For the record, I never assume because an article is published, it is correct.Regards,Tre

[xxx]

1. As far as understanding human nature goes, being a scholar or of a scholary bent doesn't necessarily preclude someone from having that understanding.2. But as for burying one's nose in a book, or many books for that matter - how else would any of us gain an understanding of the ancient world? We're not born with that kind of insight, now are we? :-)As to #1 - No it doesn't, but it sure has eluded a good many lots of times.As to #2 - A book alone will tell you a single dimension. It's taking it and putting it into multi-dimensional thought that is the difference between parroting and ideas if that makes any kind of sense. Few people actually understand the ancient world because it is hard to shed modern conceptions of society enough to step out of the box. Reading about it can give you some facts, but it takes more than facts to build a world. The relationship between Alexander and his father is a case in point, but that is far too detailed and long for this post.Deja vu? Depends on the Linda :-)Regards,Tre

[marcus]

Hi Tre,Having re-read my post, and now yours, another thing occurred to me.It's possible that Cassander could have tramped around Asia, then gone back to Macedonia, then been sent back out to Babylon by Antipater, if he were, say, going to collect more recruits.However, I would say its improbable, as we would expect there to be some mention of it - as we've both already covered. Arrian for one seems very consistent in his mentions of when people were sent back to get reinforcements, or when reinforcements arrive (Curtius isn't bad, either); and of course, perhaps most famously, we know full well that Craterus was sent back with the veterans in late 324 or early 323. Therefore, considering Cassander's prominence post-323, it's mighty strange that none of our sources make any mention of him being sent back, or of being on the world tour in the first place.All the bestMarcus

[abm]

Hi Tre and Marcus,GÇÿNo, but using logic, understanding the ancient world and human nature is. Burying your nose in a
book will never teach you that.GÇÖI totally agree with what Linda said on this GÇÿReading about it can give you some facts, but it takes more than facts to build a world. The relationship between Alexander and his father is a case in pointGÇÖthis exactly why the relationship between Alexander and his father will always elude us to a certain extent. GÇÿFew people actually understand the ancient world because it is hard to shed modern conceptions of society enough to step out of the boxGÇÖAs above, the past will always elude us to certain extent. The best way to try to get some understanding is, to my mind, to read as much of the ancient sources as possible (literature, inscriptions, and papyri) and studying the material remains; and thatGÇÖs exactly what IGÇÖm doing. Our interpretations of it will always be conditioned by personal experience and the way we look at our own life as well, and thatGÇÖs why history will always remain subjective to a certain degree, and why we will probably never agree. That said, IGÇÖm enjoying the discussion.GÇÿSo what you're saying is, if I don't buy into the Alexander is evil contingent of modern scholarship somehow my views are not valid?GÇÖNo, thatGÇÖs why I said admiration AND contempt. It is clear that at least Worthington is going to far in his views on Alexander and that is the reason why Frank Holt gave the subtitle GÇÿin the interest of historical accuracyGÇÖ to an article reacting against Worthington.(in Ancient History Bulletin 2000, but I donGÇÖt recall the exact reference)GÇÿthere's no logic to him being with Alexander, then being sent back to Macedon, then coming back out again to plead his father's caseGÇÖIs there logic to everything that happens in human history? I donGÇÖt think so. As far this particular point concerns, we would need to know a lot more about Alexander history to judge whether there is logic to it.GÇÿConsidering he became a major player after Alexander's death, it would be more surprising were he there on campaign and not mentioned at all. (GǪ) one might reasonably expect him to have one or two mentionsGÇÖHe +¡s mentioned by Diodorus at the crossing of the Hellespont (I have feeling I already repeated this too much in this discussion, sorry for that). Thus he has one mention.GÇÿLysimachus didn't really do much until 325BC - although he was a somatophylax, which gave him

[abm]

GÇÿLysimachus didn't really do much until 325BC - although he was a somatophylax, which gave him some more justification for mentionGÇÖHow do we know Lysimachus didnGÇÖt do much before 325? Because he isnGÇÖt mentioned enough; again the nature of our sources makes it impossible to assess this.About Antipater and Cassander GÇô I donGÇÖt say he was too young, since indeed, he must have been about 35 at the time. I do say that Antipater might have thought there was a higher chance that men like Antigonos would obey someone of the elder generation such as Polyperchon. I must admit that it is equally possible that he assumed Cassander had regal aspirations, as you say. In that case, however, he was indeed wrong about Polyperchon. Moreover, I still think CassanderGÇÖs appointment as chiliarch implies that his father trusted him. If Antipater indeed pass over Cassander because of his regal ambitions, than you admit that Antipater was acting in the interest of the royal house and the empire, and I thought this was not the way you thought about Antipater (but maybe I misunderstood your view on him).GÇÿDoes it reflect upon Cassander? You pay your money and make your own choice.GÇÖIndeed, it might reflect upon Cassander, but it need not do so, as I already said. Thus, as this will never be clear, I do not think one is allowed to use it as an argument. Moreover, once you start killing halfbrothers, killing brothers might be just a step away. The way I see all Argeads and Successors, they just didnGÇÖt really care about a human life, if they saw a way to power, whether it was a close relative or not.GÇÿyou have changed what you said about the Argeads wiping themselvesGÇÖI most certainly did not. You are right that Cassander killed the last male Argead (if you exclude CassanderGÇÖs sons by Thessalonike), but this is only the last step in Argead demise. Had Olympias and Eurydike worked together (and for this argument it is immaterial whether it is feasible that they would have done so) Cassander might never have come to power in the first place. Thus the entire Argead family was in a way responsible for its own demise in killing each other and making cooperation between its members impossible. ThatGÇÖs what I said at first and thatGÇÖs what IGÇÖm still saying.GÇÿPoor Phila and that's all I'm going to say. Her son must have felt for her.GÇÖWhen I give arguments against some of yours you donGÇÖt react? Strange. In the meantime IGÇÖve checked about the negotiations: it is in Plutar

[abm]

: it is in Plutarch, Demetrius 32. Phila even had to defend Demetrios against accusations by another brother of hers, Pleistarchos. Pleistarchos had always cooperated with Cassander, so he certainly did not dislike his brother. If Phila was expected to have more influence on Cassander than Pleistarchos, she certainly must have had a good relationship with Cassander. In my opinion, this conclusively disproves your previous statement that Cassander was disliked by his siblings, although admittedly, I still have to check FoxGÇÖ Mount Athos-statement.GÇÿFor the record, I never assume because an article is published, it is correctGÇÖ.Neither do I: I read the sources, I read scholarly articles and books, and I do my own sound and critical reasoning, as objective as possible. I think this is the way IGÇÖve treated FoxGÇÖ reference about CassanderGÇÖs siblings, to give just one example. IGÇÖve read AdamsGÇÖ article about Cassander campaigning with Alexander some three years ago and I recall to be convinced by him at the time, but indeed, he could be wrong (and so can I) and IGÇÖll check it again after my exams. Anyway, I donGÇÖt think the question whether Cassander campaigned with Alexander is that important in this discussion.regards, abm

[marcus]

Hi Alexander,I'll just pick up on one thing:"Lysimachus didn't really do much until 325BC - although he was a somatophylax, which gave him some more justification for mentionGÇÖHow do we know Lysimachus didnGÇÖt do much before 325? Because he isnGÇÖt mentioned enough; again the nature of our sources makes it impossible to assess this."Well, I suppose it depends on what we mean by "do". Obviously it must ultimately depend on how significant an action was, for the sources to record them; no doubt he fought very bravely, but he didn't lead any troops until the return from India, that much is clear (not least because for most of the time the somatophylakes weren't given independent commands that took them away from Alexander).However, as I previously said, I just don't think it likely that Cassander would have gone from the spring of 334 to some time in 324, as part of Alexander's council (and I think it *highly* improbable that he wouldn't have been part of that, as Antipater's son), without any mention from our sources, late and sometimes scanty and contradictory though they are. Ultimately, neither of us can offer any proof one way or the other - we'll have to maintain our opinions based on how we read the scanty evidence there is! :-)All th ebestMArcus

[alejandro]

Hi Marcus and Alexander,Reading your discussion, I was wondering whether another issue could be important: The concept of GÇ£hostageGÇ¥.Alexander did take with him for sure at least one of AntipatrosGÇÖs sons: Iollaos. Having one ally/enemyGÇÖs son(s) as a hostage to ensure the good behaviour of that ally/enemy was not unusual in those times (e.g., Philippos IIGÇÖs stay in Thebes). Thus having Iollaos with him, probably Alexander didnGÇÖt need to have Kassandros as well, and he could well be GÇ£magnanimousGÇ¥ and leave him with his GÇ£old and reliableGÇ¥ father in Makedon (Of course, if Alexander disliked Kassandros, as some think, this could be another reason for doing it).Of course, this is not a sufficient proof that Kassandros didnGÇÖt follow AGÇÖs campaign in Asia, but certainly helps to the argument that his presence was not GÇ£neededGÇ¥ (IollaosGÇÖs was enough).Also, I totally subscribe the idea that KassandrosGÇÖ participation in the campaign wouldnGÇÖt be overlooked by the historians but, mainly, by Alexander, and so if present, he would have had some commanding positions. But sources donGÇÖt mention them. Note that ParmenionGÇÖs sons did get high positions (Philotas as CompanionGÇÖs leader and Nikanor as HypaspistsGÇÖ commander). And if I am not wrong, even the suspicious Amyntas and Alexandros of Lynkestes commanded military units, at least for a while, so the alleged AlexanderGÇÖs dislike would not be a reason for Kassandros not being nominated commander as well. Rather it shows that Alex knew how to play Realpolitik at the highest level, and thus it is very unlikely (rather unacceptable, I would say) that he would play down such a strong and badly needed political force as AntipatrosGÇÖ house (again, his treatment of ParmenionGÇÖs house shows he knew how to deal with this issues).All this points to the idea that Kassandros most likely didnGÇÖt follow Alexander on his campaign in Asia. Of course, as you yourself (Alexander) mentioned before, we will never know for sure whether he did it or not, but I would lean on the GÇ£didnGÇÖtGÇ¥ option.Kind regards,
Alejandro

[Kenny]

Common Sense.As alexander says the issue with Alexander rapping Cassanders head against the wall is not proved,, Nor is it disproved anyhow why mention such an incident if it didnt happen,, It has no significance really to Alexanders story.Only that he thought it funny to snigger at Alexander using Asian Customs,, And were the sources to mention this rather small iuncident then Im sure Cassander would have otherwise been mentiones in the sources.As some one said why arrive back at Babylon return to Macedonia then tro return once again to pleads his fathers case.Kenny