Re: Securing the succession

agesilaos · Post by **agesilaos** » Thu Sep 26, 2002 3:20 pm

Infant mortality rates aside,leaving an infant heir in Macedon whilst campaigning in Asia would be:-
a) something of atemptation to rival claimants of the throne
b) a possible source of blackmail by any Regent eg. Olympias or AntipatrosTaking him on campaign would be to a risk to his survival, unless he had grown to manhood which would mean postponing the invasion; not an option.Fathering a brood could only have lead to dynastic turmoil and factionalising. I doubt Alexander refrained from sex except for the conceptions of ,Herakles, Alexander IV and Stateira's murdered child, there are too many hetairai in his entourage and it would be unusual enough to have been remarked upon.I dont think Alexander thought about the sucession until he had secured something really worth suceeding to, hence the outbreak of coeval Royal pregnancies at the end of his reign. Spurred on by his brushes with Death in India and Gedrosia perhaps, maybe even the loss of Hephaistion if he was so in love with him

susan · Post by **susan** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 10:04 am

Another way of looking at the question is - did he want an heir at all? He was a one-off, he knew it - how could any heir improve his status ? His dread would have been a son that outshone him as he outshone Philip - equally, his glory would be diminished by an incompetent heir. Better to have none at all. At the end, after Hephaistion's death, and probably the intimation of his own, things changed a bit.Susan

nick · Post by **nick** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 12:29 pm

I liked Susan's answer: he didn't want an heir. I suppose he surely didn't want a Macedonian (!) heir. Alexander lived in a world were the Persian Great King was still the ultimate symbol of power. I would suggest the simple explanation is that he wanted to in-marry in the Achaemenid dynasty (or Persian nobility at least) and a legitimate heir from a Macedonian wife would stand in the way of the foundation of his new Royal 'house' of Persia.Regards -
Nick

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 9:10 pm

Hi!!!

In my opinion He could make it in purpose. He wanted to find a wife in Asia and he was looking for some good oportunity for it (no nessesary in Achemenid dynasty). From his companions point of view they couldn't understand it. That was because he didn't share his real motives even with close friends (maybe accept the Hefajstion).
So I think: if he had an idea of uniting the world before the start of invasion - it could be the reason he didn't marry before the war. He was looking for best "connection" to eastern world but also lady of beautie anough for the king.
Maciek
Regards

marcus · Post by **marcus** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 8:37 am

The only reason why I don't think this is the answer, Maciek, is that there was nothing to stop Alexander from having more than one wife, or more than one child. And there was nothing to say that his successor *had* to be his eldest son (if, for example, he had a pure Macedonian son to begin with and then later had a Perso-Macedonian son.All the bestMarcus

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:13 pm

Yes You are right. I forgot to keep myself out of thinking using - about that subjects - using modern standards.
Of course it was not problem to have one wife and after that another. Even Alex showed that taking as his wife Basrine, Roxana and Stateira.

marcus · Post by **marcus** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 8:13 am

One thing did occur to me, Maciek, after I had written my last message. I said that there was no reason why Alexander had to make his first son the successor. This raises another question (or a few of them, actually):Had Alexander lived longer, would he have made Herakles or Alexander his heir? Did the fact that he wasn't married to Barsine matter? Was the son of the daughter of Artabazus less important than the son of a Bactrian chieftain's daughter?Interesting...All the bestMarcus

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 5:16 pm

Hi Marcus!
Talking to You is always a plesure.
These are interesting questions. Sometimes I wonder why he didn't get a wife in Macedonia. But which of his wifes and sons would be most importand to him? If I could bet it would be Roxane and her Alexander. If we concider Olimpias we can assume that it was quite dangerous - changing the plans or even planning to change the "first lady" in royal court. As we know from the begennings of Diadoch's wars that (companions - after Al's death - diadoch's) had ideas about his plans. I'm sure that for them, was obvious that the king should be Alexander IV Roxana's son. For a while the king was Arridajos but all agreed that Alexander IV should be the king when he will be grow enough. So I think Alex would choose him, but he was not even born when Al died so he couldn't know if the boy will have the king's character.
Maciek

marcus · Post by **marcus** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 6:14 am

Exactly!My assumption has always been that they Diodochi were only interested in a legitimate son - which is why they chose Al IV, even though he wasn't even born, rather than Herakles. Later on, Herakles and Barsine were killed because even an illegitimate son could be used as a political weapon.I must do some more reading on the Successor wars - it's not one I know a huge amount about. I know that AB Bosworth is bringing out a new book about the period called "The LEgacy of Alexander" (or something like that) and I'm sure he'll shed some useful light on the subject.All the bestMarcus

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 2:27 pm

I red one good book on this subject and I have two more but I will read them after my studies and master work about Alexander. I think it would be good for You to read that book which I have red. It's a polish writer Anna +Æwiderk+¦wna: "Hellad of the kings" - this is the translation from polish title and I'm not sure if it was edited abroat but I think yes because this lady is very good historic and specialist on the Egiptology and Hellenic period. You can find many interesting details in this book. I have also "Hellenica" of that same writer. I didn't red it until now but from reading parts of it - looks very intriguing. I have also "Ancient Macedonia" Hammond - I'm sure You know that book, but there is not so much about diadochs.I hope, that can help a little in searching the informations about diadochs.Regards
Maciek

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 2:28 pm

I red one good book on this subject and I have two more but I will read them after my studies and master work about Alexander. I think it would be good for You to read that book which I have red. It's a polish writer Anna +Æwiderk+¦wna: "Hellad of the kings" - this is the translation from polish title and I'm not sure if it was edited abroat but I think yes because this lady is very good historic and specialist on the Egiptology and Hellenic period. You can find many interesting details in this book. I have also "Hellenica" of that same writer. I didn't red it until now but from reading parts of it - looks very intriguing. I have also "Ancient Macedonia" Hammond - I'm sure You know that book, but there is not so much about diadochs.I hope, that can help a little in searching the informations about diadochs.Regards Maciek

marcus · Post by **marcus** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:03 am

Thanks for the tips, Maciek. I haven't come across that writer before.I have Hammond's MAcedonia book, as well. I also have Peter Green's huge "Alexander to Actium", but it's such a big book that it's quite daunting to read. I've been through some of it but I am hoping that Bosworth's new book will be a bit shorter. Knowing Bosworth, he will have some interesting and no doubt controversial things to say, too!All the bestMarcus

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:37 am

Hi
Yes it's true there is no time for reading all books I'd like to.
Those book Hellad of the kings is quite large too, but written with very good style. I couldn't stop reading it even in bathroom and ... .
Very good one. I liked especially Poliorketes story, that's why I'd like to go to Rhodos sometime.Maciek

marcus · Post by **marcus** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:10 am

Maciek,Obviously you are like me - I judge how good a book is by how likely I am to take it to the bathroom with me! Propriety prevents me for divulging any further information...I only know the bare bones of the Poliorketes story, but I have been to Rhodes about 6 times. I think you would be disappointed by the lack of Greek archaeology there, but it has some lovely areas. I have tended to stay in Lindos, which was mentioned a number of times in the ancient writers. It has a 6th century BC temple to Athena on an impressive acropolis, around which the Knights Hospitaller built a rather strong fortress. It's a heck of a climb up there in the blistering heat, but it's a beautiful sight.Whatever you do, don't go to Faliraki. It is Hell on earth.All the bestMarcus

maciek · Post by **maciek** » Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:31 pm

Hi Marcus
I wonder - will You answer my post if it's not on the screen - our discussion. But still I'll answer.I'm curious what is so scary in Faliraki.
Next year I'd like to go to Turkey, I herd that prices there are chiper that in the Greece. This year I was terrify how the prices went high from the last year. They are mad about it and I herd that many people which spend their hollidays last year there will not go there anymore. In the Turkey are many places connected to Alex's conquest so it's good to see them too. If I will be in Turkish Riviera I hope to see cilician gates, Tars, maybe Gordios.Thanks Marcus for informations about Rhodos. I will be there sometime - I'm sure and hope to meet You someday maybe there.Maciek