Mutinies and the Yearning to Return

[Paralus]

Just an ironic note on "mutinies and the yearning to return home".Eumenes and Antigonus battled themselves to a standstill sometime in 316/15 at a place unknown to us in a province called Paraetacene (in Iran). Both used elephants and both arrayed their lines in similar fashion to Alexander. Eumenes though had the better of the "veterans": both those known as the "Shield Bearers" and of course Alexander's "Silver Shields" thanks in large part to allocations from his earlier alliance with Perdiccas and continued by Polyperchon. This army had already managed to deal with a Macedonian army led into Cappodocia by Craterus (whom he killed) in 321.Despite a gap appearing in Eumenes' line (which was fully exploited by the wily One Eye), battle's end saw a stalemate and the refusal of both phalanxes to re-engage after nightfall and decide the issue. Eumenes' Phalanx was technically superior with much praise heaped upon the Silver Shields. Eumenes on the old rules had "won" given his losses were some one sixth of One Eye's. Antigonus though camped on the field and Eumenes had to ask to take up the dead.The armies met again the following year at Gabiene with Similar dispositions. This time another stalemate was in the offing as both armies repeated the previous year's result: Eumenes' phalanx (Silver shields) outpointing Antigonus' phalangites but Anitigonus' cavalry proving superior. Antigonus' cavalry in fact captured Eumenes' baggage train GÇô including the wives and families of Alexander's veteran Silver Shields. The rest we know: those veterans (understandably) sold their general up the river for their kin.Eumenes was executed despite Antigonus preferring to let him live (his army had had quite enough of a troublesome Greek) but what was the fate of the core of Eumenes' phalanx GÇô the Silver Shields? According to Diodorus (the only source for the battles) Antigonus burnt their commander alive and sent them out to Arochsia and Afghanistan so that might never return home to Macedonia again. No more mutinies, no more treason.The road to empire now lay open if only Antigonus could deal with Babylon (Seleucas). The prospect of this raised Ptolemy, Seleucas , Cassander and Lysimachus in coalition against him. What began as a diplomatic war eventually led to the fateful Ipsus confrontation where Demetrius snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 301.

[Paralus]

Just an ironic note on "mutinies and the yearning to return home".Eumenes and Antigonus battled themselves to a standstill sometime in 316/15 at a place unknown to us in a province called Paraetacene (in Iran). Both used elephants and both arrayed their lines in similar fashion to Alexander. Eumenes though had the better of the "veterans": both those known as the "Shield Bearers" and of course Alexander's "Silver Shields" thanks in large part to allocations from his earlier alliance with Perdiccas and continued by Polyperchon. This army had already managed to deal with a Macedonian army led into Cappodocia by Craterus (whom he killed) in 321.Despite a gap appearing in Eumenes' line (which was fully exploited by the wily One Eye), battle's end saw a stalemate and the refusal of both phalanxes to re-engage after nightfall and decide the issue. Eumenes' Phalanx was technically superior with much praise heaped upon the Silver Shields. Eumenes on the old rules had "won" given his losses were some one sixth of One Eye's. Antigonus though camped on the field and Eumenes had to ask to take up the dead.The armies met again the following year at Gabiene with Similar dispositions. This time another stalemate was in the offing as both armies repeated the previous year's result: Eumenes' phalanx (Silver shields) outpointing Antigonus' phalangites but Anitigonus' cavalry proving superior. Antigonus' cavalry in fact captured Eumenes' baggage train GÇô including the wives and families of Alexander's veteran Silver Shields. The rest we know: those veterans (understandably) sold their general up the river for their kin.Eumenes was executed despite Antigonus preferring to let him live (his army had had quite enough of a troublesome Greek) but what was the fate of the core of Eumenes' phalanx GÇô the Silver Shields? According to Diodorus (the only source for the battles) Antigonus burnt their commander alive and sent them out to Arochsia and Afghanistan so that might never return home to Macedonia again. No more mutinies, no more treason.The road to empire now lay open if only Antigonus could deal with Babylon (Seleucas). The prospect of this raised Ptolemy, Seleucas , Cassander and Lysimachus in coalition against him. What began as a diplomatic war eventually led to the fateful Ipsus confrontation where Demetrius snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 301.

[Paralus]

Further to mutinies and upset soldiers. Back about the time of Alexander's anabasis to India, several thousands (tens) of Greek mercenaries and others described as "veterans" felt no longer fit for service were settled in several of the "upper Satrapies" (far east/northeast) intended as security bulwarks of the empire. Many of these settlements were new. Now, most of these would be greek mercenaries pressed into service by Alexander and not really ever trusted. Some though, must have been of Macedonian background? (Must do some more reading).Once word got 'round that Alexander was gone and most unlikely to return, several of these began the journey back to Europe. Many succeeded. Once word of Alexander's death got about, most gathered themselves up and marched en masse in the direction of home. This lead to the confrontation with Peithon's Macedonian army because because the veterans refused to live in punitive colonies and had determined to fight their way home. As Ernst Badian writes ( http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm ) in "Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times":"Having monopolized the market in Greek mercenaries, he forced them to settle in the northeastern frontier region of the empire, in a ring of colonies that was to ensure its military safety. Even before his death, when he had disappeared into India and there were apparently rumours circulating that he would never return, some of the conscripts in those colonies started on the long migration home, and at least some of those who did were successful. As soon as he was safely dead, many thousands of them banded together for the long march back, through areas held by hostile Macedonians and inhabited by natives perhaps equally hostile to both. Of course, this movement had little to do with national antagonism on the mercenaries' side. It was a revolt against Alexander's despotism, which in the instance had happened to be aimed at Greeks."
The same feelings that would later result in the "Lamian" war. Peithon's idea was, of course, to co-opt the veterans back into service of both the empire and most likely himself. It didn't work because in typical Greek fashion, several thousand betrayed the others and the Macedonians seeing plunder and revenge murdered some 17,000 of them after they'd surrendered. Gra

[Paralus]

Further to mutinies and upset soldiers. Back about the time of Alexander's anabasis to India, several thousands (tens) of Greek mercenaries and others described as "veterans" felt no longer fit for service were settled in several of the "upper Satrapies" (far east/northeast) intended as security bulwarks of the empire. Many of these settlements were new. Now, most of these would be greek mercenaries pressed into service by Alexander and not really ever trusted. Some though, must have been of Macedonian background? (Must do some more reading).Once word got 'round that Alexander was gone and most unlikely to return, several of these began the journey back to Europe. Many succeeded. Once word of Alexander's death got about, most gathered themselves up and marched en masse in the direction of home. This lead to the confrontation with Peithon's Macedonian army because because the veterans refused to live in punitive colonies and had determined to fight their way home. As Ernst Badian writes ( http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm ) in "Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times":"Having monopolized the market in Greek mercenaries, he forced them to settle in the northeastern frontier region of the empire, in a ring of colonies that was to ensure its military safety. Even before his death, when he had disappeared into India and there were apparently rumours circulating that he would never return, some of the conscripts in those colonies started on the long migration home, and at least some of those who did were successful. As soon as he was safely dead, many thousands of them banded together for the long march back, through areas held by hostile Macedonians and inhabited by natives perhaps equally hostile to both. Of course, this movement had little to do with national antagonism on the mercenaries' side. It was a revolt against Alexander's despotism, which in the instance had happened to be aimed at Greeks."
The same feelings that would later result in the "Lamian" war. Peithon's idea was, of course, to co-opt the veterans back into service of both the empire and most likely himself. It didn't work because in typical Greek fashion, several thousand betrayed the others and the Macedonians seeing plunder and revenge murdered some 17,000 of them after they'd surrendered. Gra

[Paralus]

Read: Granicus all over again. (amazing how it does that!)

[Paralus]

Read: Granicus all over again. (amazing how it does that!)

[Jim]

This gets to the heart of the matter of what has bothered me about the question of would Antipater fight Alexander. We agree he would and we agree that Alexander would fight Antipater. The question then is why didn't he? Why was it Peithon and not Alexander that defeated Biton and his renegade Greeks? Alexander was in position to do so from Ecbatana in 324. At that time his empire was in disarray. Biton was leading 23,000 men to Greece in open rebellion. The Saka tribesmen were overrunning the Satrapies the Greeks had abandoned and Alexandria Eschete was cut off. Pigres and Ariarathes were maintaining Persian resistance with a force 45,000 strong in Pontic Cappadocia and northern Armenia. In Thrace Seuthes was in rebellion with an army of 28,000. In Greece Aetolia and Athens were both making preparations for conflict over their refusal to surrender Oeniadae and Samos to retuning exiles. Anitpater was refusing to obey direct commands and indications were that Craterus and Antigonus were sympathetic to his situation. In the face of all this Alexander withdrew from Ecbatana, returned to Babylon and prepared to march into Arabia!Now consider this question: Who was the supperior strategist Alexander or Perdiccas? Once Perdiccas established his position as Regent he dispatched Peithon to Media to face and defeat Biton and Stasanor to Bactria and Soghdiana to restore the frontier. He dispatched Neoptolemus to put down Pigres in Armenia. In Anatolia he sent Eumenes to Cappadocia and Leonnatus to H. Phrygia and ordered Antigonus to join forced with them to attack Ariarathes. He sent Lysimachus to Thrace to reduce Seuthes. With Leonnatus and Lysimachus in control of the Hellaspont and Ptolemy in control of Egyptian and Cyrenaican wheat Perdiccas secured Athens' sources of this much needed commodity. Antipater he placated and Craterus he marginalized. When Antigonus dithered and Leonnatus betrayed him Perdiccas himself led the Royal Army into Pontic Cappadocia and defeated Ariarathes and went on to conquer Lycaonia and Pisidia. All this in the time Alexander would have spent in Arabia. Was Perdiccas a better strategist than Alexander?
Had the death of Hephaestion unhinged Alexander?
Or did Alexander have an even grander scheme in mind of how to deal with all these problems?

[Jim]

This gets to the heart of the matter of what has bothered me about the question of would Antipater fight Alexander. We agree he would and we agree that Alexander would fight Antipater. The question then is why didn't he? Why was it Peithon and not Alexander that defeated Biton and his renegade Greeks? Alexander was in position to do so from Ecbatana in 324. At that time his empire was in disarray. Biton was leading 23,000 men to Greece in open rebellion. The Saka tribesmen were overrunning the Satrapies the Greeks had abandoned and Alexandria Eschete was cut off. Pigres and Ariarathes were maintaining Persian resistance with a force 45,000 strong in Pontic Cappadocia and northern Armenia. In Thrace Seuthes was in rebellion with an army of 28,000. In Greece Aetolia and Athens were both making preparations for conflict over their refusal to surrender Oeniadae and Samos to retuning exiles. Anitpater was refusing to obey direct commands and indications were that Craterus and Antigonus were sympathetic to his situation. In the face of all this Alexander withdrew from Ecbatana, returned to Babylon and prepared to march into Arabia!Now consider this question: Who was the supperior strategist Alexander or Perdiccas? Once Perdiccas established his position as Regent he dispatched Peithon to Media to face and defeat Biton and Stasanor to Bactria and Soghdiana to restore the frontier. He dispatched Neoptolemus to put down Pigres in Armenia. In Anatolia he sent Eumenes to Cappadocia and Leonnatus to H. Phrygia and ordered Antigonus to join forced with them to attack Ariarathes. He sent Lysimachus to Thrace to reduce Seuthes. With Leonnatus and Lysimachus in control of the Hellaspont and Ptolemy in control of Egyptian and Cyrenaican wheat Perdiccas secured Athens' sources of this much needed commodity. Antipater he placated and Craterus he marginalized. When Antigonus dithered and Leonnatus betrayed him Perdiccas himself led the Royal Army into Pontic Cappadocia and defeated Ariarathes and went on to conquer Lycaonia and Pisidia. All this in the time Alexander would have spent in Arabia. Was Perdiccas a better strategist than Alexander?
Had the death of Hephaestion unhinged Alexander?
Or did Alexander have an even grander scheme in mind of how to deal with all these problems?

[Paralus]

G'day Jim.
I think the wrong word is being used: strategist. This is not to suggest that Perdiccas was not a good strategist (though why one would march on Egypt with no clear plan to successfully cross the Nile poses a question), clearly the moves made that you've enumerated indicate a good grasp. The better word here is possibly administrator.Much has been written about Alexander's administrative abilities or lack thereof. His dealings whilst alive would indicate that this was not a subject to garner and hold his interest. Arete and new worlds to conquer were his interest. It is entirely possible that he saw these problems as just that: problems that others were to solve GÇô specifically his satraps. An attitude demonstrated by his "battle of mice" remark on Antipater's success in the Peleponnese against Agis (meant also as a put down to Antipater).The Punjab was indeed in disarray (and in fact never recovered) but I think Alexander had no strong interest in going back that way again GÇô not in the short term anyway. Indeed, the empire was in such a state that Harparlus absconded to Athens with several lifetime fortunes at the same time Alexander conducted a reign of terror GÇô killing several satraps and generals (both Asian and Macedonian). The replacements were obviously ordered to right matters whilst Alexander got on with the things that demi-gods do. Then Hephaestion died.The response was to take on some of this work himself GÇô not for the needs of the empire GÇô but for the needs of the King. But, as Paul Cartledge so neatly puts it:"No amount of bloodstained campaigning, such as that against the unsubdued Iranian people, the Cossaeans in the winter of 324-3, could compensate for the loss of this lifelong companion".A campaign to Arabia just might. Leave the messy administrative tidy ups to those whose responsibility it is: the satraps of the affected areas. What did his marshals think?

One can only infer from their actions I suppose.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim.
I think the wrong word is being used: strategist. This is not to suggest that Perdiccas was not a good strategist (though why one would march on Egypt with no clear plan to successfully cross the Nile poses a question), clearly the moves made that you've enumerated indicate a good grasp. The better word here is possibly administrator.Much has been written about Alexander's administrative abilities or lack thereof. His dealings whilst alive would indicate that this was not a subject to garner and hold his interest. Arete and new worlds to conquer were his interest. It is entirely possible that he saw these problems as just that: problems that others were to solve GÇô specifically his satraps. An attitude demonstrated by his "battle of mice" remark on Antipater's success in the Peleponnese against Agis (meant also as a put down to Antipater).The Punjab was indeed in disarray (and in fact never recovered) but I think Alexander had no strong interest in going back that way again GÇô not in the short term anyway. Indeed, the empire was in such a state that Harparlus absconded to Athens with several lifetime fortunes at the same time Alexander conducted a reign of terror GÇô killing several satraps and generals (both Asian and Macedonian). The replacements were obviously ordered to right matters whilst Alexander got on with the things that demi-gods do. Then Hephaestion died.The response was to take on some of this work himself GÇô not for the needs of the empire GÇô but for the needs of the King. But, as Paul Cartledge so neatly puts it:"No amount of bloodstained campaigning, such as that against the unsubdued Iranian people, the Cossaeans in the winter of 324-3, could compensate for the loss of this lifelong companion".A campaign to Arabia just might. Leave the messy administrative tidy ups to those whose responsibility it is: the satraps of the affected areas. What did his marshals think?

One can only infer from their actions I suppose.

[Jim]

Hi, Paralus. Yes you are right and that clears the matter for me. Alexander was on a plane higher than Perdiccas. Alexander, as a matter of strategy, could handle these issues at his leisure whereas Perdiccas, as a function of administration, needed these issues settled so he could concentrate on establishing his regency.

[Jim]

Hi, Paralus. Yes you are right and that clears the matter for me. Alexander was on a plane higher than Perdiccas. Alexander, as a matter of strategy, could handle these issues at his leisure whereas Perdiccas, as a function of administration, needed these issues settled so he could concentrate on establishing his regency.

[Jim]

I cant get away from this Idea Antipater...against Alexander.
Hey, Kenny. I think it is a lot like when Alcetas took on Antigonus. He shouldn't have but couldn't get out of the way quick enough. Antigonus displayed a bit of Alexander's skill at moving forces quicker than people could give credit to. Antipater may well have been like a deer in the headlights, incapable of making a decisive move before it was too late. It didn't matter if he wanted to fight or not, had he lived Alexander would have broght war to him.

[Jim]

I cant get away from this Idea Antipater...against Alexander.
Hey, Kenny. I think it is a lot like when Alcetas took on Antigonus. He shouldn't have but couldn't get out of the way quick enough. Antigonus displayed a bit of Alexander's skill at moving forces quicker than people could give credit to. Antipater may well have been like a deer in the headlights, incapable of making a decisive move before it was too late. It didn't matter if he wanted to fight or not, had he lived Alexander would have broght war to him.

[kenny]

Hail Jim And MichaelAnd respect to your knowledge in the succesions and bickering.Im afraid my Interest in Greko Macedonia following Alexanders death is somewhat lacking. I moved on to Roman Studies.Your spot on as soon as Alexander went foreward the Satrapies and governers kicked off. I put his atrocities down to those actions I mean He fights sets up what he feels is a fair system and once hes gone they kick off. Every where they did it From looting Cyrus tomb to his buddy Harpalus not once but twice making off with the loot and setting himself up as king wherever he was.Its always brought up about Alexanders purges when he returned but upon taking a close look I would wager the majority got what they deserve. Id wager they thought well Alexanders in India and its unlikely hes comming out of the Makran. A case of mice playing whilst the cats away only the cat came back.With respect to you 2 guys its obvious Alexander didnt have the loyalty antwhere to hold his empire or achieve what he wanted.I guess second best would be to conquer. I dont think there was any threat from Greece Macedonia, Craterus or anywhere. They were Always divided and would forever be. Alexanders will of comand and Persona would take them anytime.Just remember why the Romans took Macedonia and Greece so easy. Is because they were never united.They would Argue over the Proverbial S**t.m in total agreeance Headlights and get out of the way fast enough. Just remember our guy was and is the worlds first and readily accepted the Greatest commander bar none. By the time Alexander got back to Babylon Emiseries from Both Carthage and Rome were sending envoys to get on his good side.Greece and Macedonia were only Strong under Philip and Alexander even then they were not united.If they had been and played the Game its fare to Say Rome would never have gotten off the ground.Only my opinion. Inity breeds strenght. Division is week and its always been quoted its easier to divide and conquer. And The Greeks were always divided.Kenny