On the Assembly?

[smittysmitty]

Much has been said about the significance of the 'assembly' which in Macedon's terms meant the army. Selecting or more accurately 'acclaiming' who would be king, was a duty performed by this conglomeration of troops. At the death of Alexander, the 'assembly, gave acclaim for Arrhidaeus and the prospective male heir of Alexander by Roxane.Now the question is, given that perhaps at least half of the Macedonian army, that is, 'assembly'' was still in Europe, can we say that this decision was legitimate or perhaps a temporary fix till both spheres of the empire managed to meet so as to decide?Appreciably, the eastern army was in desperate need to find a new leader, but was the decision to find a king immediately necessary?

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,Yes, it's an interesting one, isn't it?For a start, a lot hinges on whether the 'assembly' actually had any 'legislative' power, which seems to be arguable (Hammond and others spent quite a long time discussing that one!). I'm inclined to the idea that, as there were some thousands in Babylon, the generals had sufficient numbers who acclaimed/agreed/whatever that, if the decision had to be backed up with force, it would be. I suspect that that was the real point of the 'assembly' - sort of rubber stamping decisions by a large enough show of power that no-one else would find it sensible to argue.Now, there were obviously many thousands of soldiers who were *not* in Babylon ... but enough were that any dissent was going to be very messy - as indeed it became!ATBMarcus

[heinrich]

This is exactly the point made by Bosworth in *The Legacy of Alexander*: there were at least three centers of (more or less legitimate) power - Babylon, Macedonia, and the army of Craterus. Our sources focus on Babylon, but the deal by Perdiccas and Arridaeus was not necessarily recognized by the others.HM

[marcus]

Exactly, Heinrich - and the more soldiers you had, and the more prepared they were to back up your claim, the more 'legitimate' they were!ATBMarcus

[Jim Boudreaux]

The difference between the three centers was that there were 50,000 plus soldiers encamped outside Babylon who had until recently been the enemy. There must have been some apprehension about their reaction to anything but a united front, and what better facade to that end than an acclaimed king?

[manny05]

Dear smitty2---I think the army had a premonition about a proper Replacement for Alexander during a very public event: the funeral pyre of Hephaistion. It was probably the biggest they've ever seen, much bigger than Philip's, and the heat must have been overwhelming, like watching a ten-storey building ablaze from across the street. Their Homeric king had gone mad, and much as they loved him still, they can't go on riding Alexander's emotional roller coaster war-train much longer while they're in a foreign land. "Sober" choices began to be discussed among the troops. As for the home-half of the army, they're at the mercy of couriers from the warfront, so whatever they "decided" didn't match or counter the Asian side as promptly as it would today with a mobile phone call. This is consistent with the position that Alexander's greatest failure---the failure to provide a viable heir, or otherwise logical/interim successor, early on---began to be felt as a real life-and-death threat to the soldiers themselves during the frighteningly large fire that sent the ashes of Alexander's soul-mate heavenwards. The day Alexander was declared dead was the day the sky fell on the Macedonians in Asia. Everyone and no one was fit to acclaim the next leader. King. Ruler. Commander-in-chief. Literally, the Next Alexander. Only chaos could have ruled, and the kind of political-military-economic-geographic jockying not seen since. The collapse of the Soviet Union was by comparison a waltz. Or am I just trying to write a script?Manny E
Six Feet Over (The Top)

[Kit]

Hi Smitty,I don't think there was ever any real doubt as to who the 'Assembly'would acclaim. There was a tremendous sense of loyalty to the Argead House, so no realistic candidate would be found elsewhere. Phillip Arheadeus was the only choice pending the birth of Alexander's child, and that was still some way off at the time of his death.It is extremely doubtful that the Macedonians in Macedon, or those with Craterus, would have disagreed with the choice made by the assembly in Babylon. The question of who was to be regent for the Kings was the main issue, and this was certainly open to debate and conflict as following events showed. It is certain that the Marshalls not present at the Babylonian settled did not accept Perdiccas'role. Antipater, Craterus, Antigonus all wanted to re-visit that decision! The fact that Cassander had to eliminate Alexander IV in secret, and conceal his death for some time, is evidence of the enduring loyalty felt for the Argeads.As to whether the Assembly had any legitimate power to appoint/acclaim the King. We have no definitive record, but the actions of Alexander and Phillip during their lifetime does seem to suggest that, at the very least, a strong tradition existed to suggest they did.Given the type of semi-tribal society that Macedon had, it would not be suprising to see the army playing a decisive role in choosing it's commander-in-chief!regards,Kitregards,Kit.

[Laura]

You are right when you focus on the non-Macedonians. In his recent book on Alexander the Great, J. Lendering points at the fact that Arrhidaeus became king BY WEARING THE GARMENTS of his predecessor, which is an oriental practice. Babylonian kings wore the garment of Nebuchadnezzar; Persian kings wore the mantle of Cyrus.Lauren

[alejandro]

Hi Heinrich, Marcus and JamesI really liked MarcusGÇÖs idea of the army just GÇ£rubber-stampingGÇ¥ whatever the big guns decided. I think it fits well with some scholarsGÇÖ view (which I find very appealing) that the Macedonian king was not an absolute ruler but GÇ£primus-inter-paresGÇ¥, such that any candidate to the Kingship would require some diplomatic skills to ensure enough noblemenGÇÖs support at the moment of the previous monarchGÇÖs demise. Since these noblemen will drag with them their tribal levies, the GÇ£acclamationGÇ¥ becomes, indeed, only rubber-stamping.The big difference between all the previous successions and AlexanderGÇÖs one is that, unlike the previous cases, now those tribal allegiances were weakened, both because of 10 years of marching that made them all GÇ£AlexanderGÇÖsGÇ¥ rather than Lynkestids, Orestids or something else, and because of the geographic scattering of the army, as pointed out in other posts.What I wanted to stress here is that the system collapsed in 323 because it was conceived for simpler, easier cases, as the previous ones have been. When Macedonian successions took place within the kingdom or its neighbourhood, things were easy: there was just one army, or the other one (say, a garrison in Pella) was within a few daysGÇÖ reach, such that the decision was quite straightforward once the armies were reunited: whomever gets more warlords (ie, noblemen) to support his claim, will become the next king. While simple enough, this GÇ£constitutionGÇ¥ never considered alternative scenarios as far-fetched as the one that AlexanderGÇÖs Anabasis generated, and thus no contingency was envisaged to deal with such cases. The ensuing confusion and uncertainty are hence not only understandable but probably the only likely situation we could expect from it.This could certainly be presented as another argument in favour of the thesis that he was rather unconcerned about his succesion (though it is also true that he had conceived two children that very year, but still, at least 15 years would have been needed for them to be considered for the throne, and we all know that Alexander IV never turned 16GǪie, metaphorically, I donGÇÖt know exactly the age at which he died).Homeric traditions have glamour and can lead to heroism and genius, but maybe a more politically organized empire could have survived this initial tempest, donGÇÖt you think? The Ptolemies did it in EgyptGǪKind regards,Alejandro

[agesilaos]

The decision to choose Arrhidaios was not a natural one. Perdikkas favoured waiting to find out if Rhoxane's child was a son and this was the proposal the Assembly was to ratify, Meleagros dragged Arrhidaios into the equation hoping to advance himself. Also it was not just the successionthat was being decided but the whole raft of Perdikkas' settlement which was subsequently reviewed and acclaimed at the meeting at Triparadeisos where both Asian and European Armies were present.The Assembly at Babylon was extraordinary in that there were only about 3,000 foot and 1,000 horse present.

[Kit]

But Perdiccas' desire to await the birth of Roxanne's baby was not necessarily a good one- as the rank and file thought. The baby could have been still born, died during birth, or been female. The fact that Meleager put forward Arrhideus as a candidate is indicitive of a ground swell of support amongst the common soldiery. Whilst we will never know the minds of the assembly at this distance, I stand by my view that it would have been representative of the view of all Macedonian soldiers (at least the common soldiery),including those with Craterus and Antipater. The Assembly may well have been prepared to leave the other issues (aside from the question of who was to be king) to the Marshals. regards,Kit

[xxx]

It must be remembered that this situation was unique and an assembly would not have meant the common run of soldiers, but in fact the Companions. It was the nobility that selected the next King by favor of friendship and support in the interfamily wars of the Argeads. What was unique about this situation, is that Alexander allowed his friends to wield more power than any other King before him and they also controlled more men themselves than ever before. There was also a chance for non-Argeads to make moves they would not have been allowed to make at any other time. It is quite clear that Alexander selected Perdikkas as his choice, but remember it was never a King who chose his successor so it should not surprise anyone that it would not last long. When Alexander died, there was only one male Argead living and that was Arrhideous. Superstition being what it was and with them being in a foreign land, it should also not be surprising Meleager used the soldiers fears to make a move that would put him in a place of power. But as he would find, he was just a bit player who was easily exterminated 'out of the moment.' The Diadochi may have hated each other, but they weren't going to allow anyone else in their game.

[Kit]

Tre,When you say it was clear that Alexander chose Perdiccas as his successor do you mean as Regent or King?There seems to be considerable debate as to whether Alexander nominated anyone as his successor. And of course, there is the issue of wether he said 'to the strongest' or 'to Craterus'- assuming he could actually speak at that point!I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning.regards,Kit.

[xxx]

By handing over the ring to Perdikkas, he passed his power over to him. That gesture was defacto proof of what Alexander wanted (or actually what he was left with - I believe had Hephaistion lived, he would have passed his Ring over to him). Perdikkas was already occupying the second in command position before the King died. Note that we are talking a new empire here, but within Macedonian law, he could only be Regent of the Empire. However, within the new Empire he could be King or at least he certainly thought so. But others shared his ambition and still others would never be subserviant to him hence the wars. I rather doubt Alexander's utterance 'To the strongest.' Nor do I see any reason to believe he would have picked Kratero outside of a modernistic play on words. Kratero, as a traditionalist, was not exactly on the same wavelength as Alexander.Regards,Tre

[abm]

we should indeed take into account that this was a unique situation and i think the troops in Babylon 'usurped' a power that was not really theirs when they acclaimed a king.I don't think it is possible to judge the role of the non-macedonian soldiers. That Meleagros brought Arrhidaios to the assembly wearing the royal robes has, to my mind, nothing to do with eastern symbolism, since no oriental troops were present at the meeting and I doubt whether Meleagros and the rank and file would have cared about them anyway.