Cassander as regent (continued)

[lucian]

I don't know much about Cassander, but I am going to lean towards him following to some degree. All I know of him is that him and Alexander were not the best of buddies. I feel as though Alexander would have kept a distant eye on him - not touch him because of Antipater, but not fully trust him because of past disagreements, and maybe a little peer pressure from those closest to him? Cassander doesn't seem incompetent, so one couldn't keep him low on account of not being useful.
Parmenio and Philotas were equally important in the story, but where one team got arrogant and flamboyant, another decided to try to be cautious while Alexander lived. So as my opinion goes, it is possible that Cassander stayed within days reach of Alexander and Antipater alike. I suppose that with the news of Parmenio's death, Antipater grasped his son a little more tightly, not necessarily to save him, but save his own ass. And although the argument of Alexander holding "hostages" might not apply to Cassander's situation, it does not mean that Alexander wouldn't still want to keep an eye on him, while playing pretend friends. To me it just sounds like something Alexander would have done to feel a little more comfortable. If it seems that Cassander's position was in limbo, maybe it was meant to be that way.And in response to the philosophical vs studious, intellectual debate...it doesn't matter how the hell you arrive at your opinions, just as long as you find a way to search for the answers, the key is to always question.See yas!

[marcus]

This isn't really related, but ...1. What actual evidence do we have in the sources that Alexander and Cassander didn't get on - *apart* from the incidents related when Cass gets to Babylon. I'm at work so don't have my books to consult, but apart from the fact that I've always understood it to be the case, I don't actually know *where* a *lifelong* mutual dislike comes from.2. Totally apropos of nothing, really, I did a Google search to see if I could find the answer to (1) above, and found a website where someone was obviously doing some heavy-duty genealogical research. Whether or not there's *any* substance to it, this person says that Cassander was Prince William's 77th Great Uncle, Winston Churchill's 78th Great Uncle, and Louis XVII's 71st Great Uncle.Interesting, eh?All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

GÇÿthis exactly why the relationship between Alexander and his father will always elude us to a certain extent.GÇÖ The behavior of pack animals is useful in such a study. Once a competent heir comes of age, the current King views him not as a son, but as a potential rival and therefore a danger to his own life, particularly if he is more popular. While a son might not kill a King out of respect for the GÇÿlawsGÇÖ that govern their society so to speak, nor a King kill his son for the very same reasons, the friends of the son can kill the King and a King can see to it his son gets a very dangerous assignment heGÇÖs unlikely to survive.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?GÇÖ No, thatGÇÖs why I said admiration AND contempt.YouGÇÖd be wrong on that BTW. There are very good reasons for what Cassander did, I just donGÇÖt have to admire him for it.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) Well aware of that one. Now, donGÇÖt go getting the impression I am not well read.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 caseGÇÖ Is there logic to everything that happens in human history? I donGÇÖt think so. Alexander was for the most part, unfailingly logical. It was one of the reasons he was so successful.He +¡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. But not on campaign in Asia. It would be expected that he would campaign within short shot of Macedon GÇô so did his father, but Antipater we know didnGÇÖt go to Asia (and for very good reasons).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. Note that Antipater had not made a marriage for Cassander and he was well past marr

[xxx]

Note that Antipater had not made a marriage for Cassander and he was well past marrying age. Cassander had designs on marrying into the Argead house and the only way to accomplish that was the death of Olympias. Antipater was a traditionalist GÇô that was not going to happen. His son was a man who did not know his place, and a man like that strikes at the very heart of tradition. In some ways, Alexander was like this too.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). But of course, you donGÇÖt know my views on Antipater, but the above should give you a point of reference.GÇÿDoes it reflect upon Cassander? You pay your money and make your own choice.GÇÖ
Indeed, 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. No, thatGÇÖs a great leap. It is the killing of the mother that more proves the point. It is interesting to point out that after the death of CassanderGÇÖs first son from sickness, both of his other children were killed by men married to CassanderGÇÖs sisters (one of them being Phila). No love lost there, IGÇÖm afraid. But again, you are entitled to your own opinion.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. More a modern conception than actual truth. There were GÇÿrulesGÇÖ even then.GÇÿyou have changed what you said about the Argeads wiping themselvesGÇÖ
I 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)It is to me GÇô when you said that, it suggested you didnGÇÖt quite understand Argead politics within the clan.
Cassander might never have come to power in the first place. This statement does not make sense. It wasnGÇÖt the Argeads fault this happened. It was AlexanderGÇÖs men - they certainly knew what CassanderGÇÖs intentions.

[xxx]

Cassander would never have made such a move without the tacit approval of the others.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. They had been doing that for a very, very long time and there were still Argead KingsGǪGÇÿPoor Phila and that's all I'm going to say. Her son must have felt for her.GÇÖ
When I give arguments against some of yours you donGÇÖt react? Strange. No, I am making a comment on PhilaGÇÖs rather unpleasant life and of her first son by Craterus.In the meantime IGÇÖve checked about the negotiations: it is in Plutar: 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. Err, he married her to Demetrios to save his own hide. Cassander would have to listen to her. 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.Anyway, I donGÇÖt think the question whether Cassander campaigned with Alexander is that important in this discussion. It is if you consider the possible why nots :-)Regards,Tre

[abm]

Allow me to rewrite what I said about admiration and contempt in my previous post, because I think I didnGÇÖt really say it very clearly. Worthington [GÇÿHow GÇ£greatGÇ¥ was Alexander?GÇÖ, Ancient History Bulletin 13.2 (1999), 39-55] was trying to show that Alexander was GÇÿevilGÇÖ and in doing so, he was clearly lead by his contempt, which caused him to make many errors. ThatGÇÖs why Holt gave his article the title GÇÿAlexander the Great today: in the interests of historical accuracyGÇÖ [AHB 13.3 (1999), 111-117], correcting some of WorthingtonGÇÖs errors. On the other hand, I think everyone would agree that Tarn made many mistakes because he wanted to show AlexanderGÇÖs greatness in anything. Thus one clearly has to put both admiration and contempt aside as much as possible when trying to reconstrut the past. This is not to say that it is not allowed to admire a historical person, but one should take heed not to lose objectivity.
Indeed, I must agree we donGÇÖt really have any evidence that Cassander campaigned with Alexander after the crossing of the Hellespont. I had a quick look at AdamsGÇÖ view and apparently I didnGÇÖt remember his view exactly. He assumes that after the crossing of the Hellespont Cassander stayed in Asia Minor for some time, cooperating with Antigonos. I didnGÇÖt have the time to check his arguments yet, but I will so and then come back on them. Thus I probably was a bit too harsh in this, but in general I still adhere to my methodological comments on it.
There are a few other passages in the sources concerning Cassander GÇô Alexander (I probably wonGÇÖt recall everything now), such as his shivering at the sight of a statue of Alexander (evidently untrue as I already said earlier in the discussion). Furthermore the view is based on the interpretation of CassanderGÇÖs policy in the wars of the Diadochoi: (1) the refoundation of Thebes, (2) the fact that he married Thessalonike, and (3) the murders of Olympias and Alexander IV and Rhoxane. Non of these three things are, however, very unambiguous in this respect:
(1) the refoundation of Thebes was simply meant to gain the support of the Greeks and had nothing to do with who had destroyed it. It was succesfull as indeed all the Greeks liked this refoundation except for the Boeotians who had received the land of the Thebans and were now forced to give it back (if IGÇÖm remerbering correctly)
(2) he married Thessalonike only after he tried to marry Kleopatra (see Diodorus XX, 37.4) and this was thus not b

[abm]

this was thus not because he hated AlexanderGÇÖs closest relatives, but because he had to settle with second best wife for a political marriage.(3) He didnGÇÖt kill these three because they were close relatives of Alexander, but because they formed an immediate threat to his power at that time and in the Case of Olympias maybe also to avenge what she did whit IolaosGÇÖ grave.Thus, in my opinion, there is no solid base for the communis opinio that Cassander tried to extinguish AlexanderGÇÖs memory and tried refer always to the time of Philip (also check the works by Goukowsky and Chamoux I quoted above on this). This would moreover be very strange in the light of the politics and propaganda of the other Diadochoi who tried to present themselves as the true successors to Alexander, since I do not agree with the view that CassanderGÇÖs ambitions were only limited to Macedon (some passages in Diodorus explicitly say that he aimed at controlling the entire empire).The reason why negative things would be said about Cassander while untrue, is evidently propaganda by the other Diadochoi, as with the rumours of him and Antipater poisoning Alexander
regards,
abm