Antipater's summons to Babylon

[Jim Boudreaux]

Agesilaos,

Enjoyed your post. The fundamental assumption of these posts is that there were indeed two situations that involved initially Alexander and Antipater and incidentally Craterus. If the accounts in the sources can be argued against as fabrications then this fundamental assumption indeed has no basis. That then brings up several additional questions.

Could Perdiccas have been the source of the fabrications? Curtius recounts how Perdiccas utilized a rumor campaign to undermine and finally eliminate his rival Meleager at Babylon. He therefore would have been adept at using smear tactics but when would he have done so? The consequence of MeleagerGÇÖs grab for power was the Babylonian Settlement. The lynchpin of that settlement was the establishment of Perdiccas, Antipater and Craterus in mutually supportive positions of authority. Antipater offered and Perdiccas accepted Phila to cinch the deal. That kept the peace for a year and a half or so. Not until the spring of 321 did Perdiccas have cause to see Antipater as an enemy and he lay dead by the end of summer of that same year. In those two seasons while overseeing the conduct of campaigns from the Hellespont to Babylon, from the Black Sea to the capital of Egypt when would he have had time and with what method would he have disseminated lies about Antipater and Craterus to such an effect that no later chronicler would be capable of discerning the lie from the fact? The last plans had been publicly disclosed almost two years prior and if in them no mention had been made about Craterus assuming AntipaterGÇÖs place in Europe then what would give Perdiccas assurance that a lie told at a time when those two became his enemies would be taken by anyone as anything more than his attempt to besmear their reputations?

If Onesicritus were the source for Arrian then were could he have come upon the information unless he made it up himself? He wrote at the court of Lysimachus. Perdiccas was chiliarch under Alexander and would have been made privy to any threatening situations extant. Upon assuming the regency Perdiccas dispatched selected men and their forces to specific satrapies in Anatolia. Perhaps this was a haphazard arrangement, but the strategic consequeces of these assignemets isolated Antipater in Europe and Craterus in Cilicia. It secured both sides of the Hellespont and intended to draw off the manpower available to Antigonus. With a legitamate exercise of his authority Perdiccas specificaly neutered the threat that we now debate the existance of. Interestingly Onesicritus had access to one of the instruments of Perdiccas' action, Lysimachus. Could Lysimachus have been the source; aware of something due to his participation that Ptolemy was not aware of due to his lack of participation?

That the phrase GÇÿthe freedom of the GreeksGÇÖ was Successor speak used to legitimize their various offensives is a given. IsnGÇÖt it as possible though that the phrase was attached to an existing list rather than that the entire list was a later fabrication?

Alexander directing Antipater to see to the public recognition of the returning veterans could have been accomplished by Antipater in an afternoon by issuing an edict to such an effect. It is not necessary to conclude that Antipater need be present to ensure the comfort of these men.

The use of Phila for political ends shows AntipaterGÇÖs priorities. That he would send a third son into the power of Alexander in an attempt to save himself does not seem outside his self serving sense of parenting. With Philotas and Parmenion Alexander acted decisively to ensure that one did not long outlive the other. WouldnGÇÖt he have done the same with Antipater and his sons? How long Alexander waited to strike Philotas until the time was ripe. Alexander had three of AntipaterGÇÖs sons; Antipater had AlexanderGÇÖs sister and could easily have his mother as well.

With the Babylonian Settlement in place by the time Craterus arrived in Pella that GÇÿsomething more recentGÇÖ was the reason he submitted his command to that of Antipater. Craterus was no longer to usurp Antipater but rather to supplement him. Antipater under the Settlement would surely be senior vis-+á-vis Craterus on military matters in Europe.

[Paralus]

The use of Phila for political ends shows AntipaterGÇÖs priorities. That he would send a third son into the power of Alexander in an attempt to save himself does not seem outside his self serving sense of parenting. With Philotas and Parmenion Alexander acted decisively to ensure that one did not long outlive the other. WouldnGÇÖt he have done the same with Antipater and his sons? How long Alexander waited to strike Philotas until the time was ripe. Alexander had three of AntipaterGÇÖs sons; Antipater had AlexanderGÇÖs sister and could easily have his mother as well.

G'day Jim.

"Self-serving sense of parenting". Ha, ha, haa! Love it! Couldn't have said it better myself and I tried - on some other thread!

Like the reasoning too. I've probably not much more to say on this as I've about exhausted my point. I do think there was tension and I do think Antipater was "for it". But, as I strongly believe that most of what we have in the four "classic" sources was strongly influenced by Ptolemaic propaganda, it would be a little churlish of me to totally discount Agesilaos' charge of Perdiccan propaganda.

[agesilaos]

It is true that Perdikkas initially sought to placate both Antipater and Krateros, but after the debacle at Lamia Antipater's stock plummetted and he ignored Phila to start courting Kleopatra. It would be in his interest to keep Krateros at arm's length from Antipater. That there was friction when they met is recorded, though anecdotally; Krateros' posing in regal armour contrasted to Antipater's puny frame. It is not beyond possibility that the written orders mentioned by Arrian were sent out to Krateros by Perdikkas ostensibly from the King's last testament.

Equally, the only source for the satrapal distribution which puts Antipater and Krateros in joint control of Europe is Arrian Ta Meta Alexandrou and it occurs to me that this might be due to contamination from Arrian himself if he remembered what he had written in the Anabasis and then rationalised from the subsequent de facto alliance of Antipater and Krateros.

I find the silence of the sources for this period about Antipater's summons and Krateros' mission compelling.