Book Club: Conquest and Empire

[Fiona]

Thank you, Paralus and Marcus, for the explanations! I have read those passages - I remember chuckling at the bit about each man conjecturing whatever was most pleasing to himself - but had forgotten about them.
There's too much to remember! I don't know how you do it, you must have brains the size of planets. I am so grateful that you share your learning!
Fiona

[Paralus]

An external hard drive helps enormously. The USB port above the ear lug looks a little off - especially when one is as bald and grey as myself. I'm attempting - at the insistence of Salaminia - to grow what is left of my hair just a little...

[Fiona]

I hadn’t realised that this book wasn’t divided into chapters, but into sections and sub-sections, so I wasn’t sure how far to read this week. But now, I am thinking that just one sub-section contains so much to talk about, that it might be enough. What does anyone else think?
For now, here are some thoughts on 2:1 entitled The Accession.

I thought Bosworth made it very clear that we have very little evidence of events around the accession, and it was surprising to realise just how little there is.
Very interesting then to read of the importance he attaches to the role of Antipater, especially when, as he says himself, there is not much evidence of his active intervention. He says that Antipater ‘probably engineered’ the general acclamation, yet later on he says, ‘Antipater, as we have seen, was instrumental in securing the capital after the assassination’. Bit of a difference!
Again, if we have so little evidence, why does he call it a fact that Antipater procured the safety of Alexander of Aeropus, and then use that fact as evidence of Antipater’s dominance? To me, this doesn’t add up. Either we know of Antipater’s involvement or we don’t. If we don’t, then the sparing of Alexander of Aeropus from sharing the fate of his brothers may be attributable to any number of things, such as Alexander trusting him; or his wife, the daughter of Antipater, pleading for him; or Arrhabaeus and Heromenes saying it was their plot and nothing to do with their brother – all speculation, of course, but not more so than dominant old Antipater calling the shots.
I don’t mind speculation at all – love it – but Bosworth says we must ‘be prepared to admit our ignorance’ and then proceeds to speculate. Curious.

Another thing that interested me, and surprised me a bit too, was the way Bosworth came down firmly against Alexander’s involvement in the death of Philip. He seems to be doing this on the grounds that Arrhabaeus and Heromenes were publicly executed, which Alexander would not have chanced were he guilty. I thought that was an interesting point, and one I had not seen before.

Also interesting, but sad, is how little we know, as Bosworth puts it, of ‘what acts and ceremonies conferred legitimacy upon a Macedonian king’.
These would be good things to know. What does Errington, who is mentioned in the footnotes, say, does anyone know?
I bet the dead dog comes into it somewhere. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, even if sumptuous clothing and lavish entertaining weren’t part of it before, they were now!

I thought he gave a good picture of the power struggle going on – aside from how much help Alexander actually needed – and showed us the dilemma of Parmenion and the fate of Attalus very clearly.
It would be good to know who Amyntas of Antiochus was, and why he left Macedon in a hurry, but I guess that is one of those things we can never know.
All the murders seem to be taken for granted by all writers as very normal behaviour for the time in the circumstances. It does seem hard on Amyntas son of Perdiccas, though. Why would he be a threat to Alexander, when he had not been one to Philip? The poor chap seems to have been quietly minding his own business, but perhaps it was just because he was grown up now and Alexander’s generation, and might have thought his chance had come.
I am glad that Arrhidaeus survived.

Fiona

[amyntoros]

Hi Fiona:

I thought Bosworth made it very clear that we have very little evidence of events around the accession, and it was surprising to realise just how little there is.
Very interesting then to read of the importance he attaches to the role of Antipater, especially when, as he says himself, there is not much evidence of his active intervention. He says that Antipater ‘probably engineered’ the general acclamation, yet later on he says, ‘Antipater, as we have seen, was instrumental in securing the capital after the assassination’. Bit of a difference!

I think he's probably right though. Antipater was the most senior general remaining in Macedon at the time of Philip's death and if he had not actively participated in or encouraged the general acclamation it would have meant that he didn't support Alexander as the king - and he could have made the difference between Alexander ascending to the throne or not, of that I don't think there's much doubt. Just my opinion though, albeit a strong one.

Again, if we have so little evidence, why does he call it a fact that Antipater procured the safety of Alexander of Aeropus, and then use that fact as evidence of Antipater’s dominance? To me, this doesn’t add up. Either we know of Antipater’s involvement or we don’t. If we don’t, then the sparing of Alexander of Aeropus from sharing the fate of his brothers may be attributable to any number of things, such as Alexander trusting him; or his wife, the daughter of Antipater, pleading for him; or Arrhabaeus and Heromenes saying it was their plot and nothing to do with their brother – all speculation, of course, but not more so than dominant old Antipater calling the shots.

Well, we do have some small evidence of Antipater helping to secure the safety of Alexander of Aeropus. It can be found in Curtius at 7.5, shortly after the deaths of Philotas and Parmenion.

[5] When he learned that the men were present in large numbers, he marched into the meeting. Then Atarrhias began to make what was no doubt a pre-arranged demand that Alexander Lyncestes be brought before them (the man who, long before Philotas, had planned to assassinate the king). [6] This Alexander had been denounced by two informers, as I stated above, and was now in the third year of imprisonment. It was thought certain that he had also conspired with Pausanias to murder Philip, but the fact that he had been the first to salute Alexander as king had gained him a reprieve, though not an acquittal. [7] Moreover, the pleas of Lyncestes' father-in-law. Antipater, also served to reduce the king's warranted anger. But the festering resentment against him broke out afresh, for anxiety over the current crisis began to revive memories of the former one. [8] Alexander was therefore brought from confinement and told to plead his case.

All the murders seem to be taken for granted by all writers as very normal behaviour for the time in the circumstances. It does seem hard on Amyntas son of Perdiccas, though. Why would he be a threat to Alexander, when he had not been one to Philip? The poor chap seems to have been quietly minding his own business, but perhaps it was just because he was grown up now and Alexander’s generation, and might have thought his chance had come.
I am glad that Arrhidaeus survived.

Unfortunately for Amyntas I don't think it would have made any difference whether he thought his chance had come or whether he just wanted to continue to live a quiet life on the sidelines. I suspect that the problem, as it always seems to be in such situations, was that people who were not so close to Alexander (or perhaps not so fond of him) could rally around Amyntas and declare him the "rightful" king, thus making him a more serious threat to Alexander. Whether he actually did plot against Alexander is doubtful in my opinion, but we'll never know one way or the other. Curtius (6.9.17) has Alexander say that his "cousin Amyntas engineered a treacherous plot against me in Macedonia" but then has Philotas, arguing against the accusation that he disdained to communicate in Macedonian, say "that kind of charge is as little damaging to me as the charge that Perdiccas' son, Amyntas, plotted against the king."

I guess that I also tend to take such murders for granted, not just because they appear to be normal behavior for the period and circumstances, but because eliminating prospective pretenders to the throne is something that is sadly repeated throughout history.

Best regards,

[Semiramis]

I guess that I also tend to take such murders for granted, not just because they appear to be normal behavior for the period and circumstances, but because eliminating prospective pretenders to the throne is something that is sadly repeated throughout history.

One could argue this point for Euridike and her baby as well. I know the general trend is to put those murders down to OIympias' vengeful and jealous feminine nature. But what's the rationale behind the assumption that Euridike, had she lived, would have been any less active in the political scene than Olympias was? I imagine the Greek and Roman writers found the concept of feminine beings (women and eunuchs) being involved in politics quite abhorrent, but this doesn't appear to be the case for the Macedonian royal family. The baby - Phillip's son, full-Macedonian blood, the powerful Attalus' grandson and of undisputed parentage (as far as we know) - would have been a threat to Alexander.

I know that the official story is that Olympias carried the murders out without Alexander's knowledge. That Alexander was apparently unhappy about them and forced to murder Attalus as a consequence of Olympias' irrational actions. But I've always been a bit skeptical of this narrative, specially given Alexander's history with Attalus.

I can't recall any challenge from Bosworth to Plutarch's narrative during my reading of the book. But perhaps Fiona and the others who are currently on that chapter could correct me.

[Paralus]

One could argue this point for Euridike and her baby as well. I know the general trend is to put those murders down to OIympias' vengeful and jealous feminine nature. But what's the rationale behind the assumption that Euridike, had she lived, would have been any less active in the political scene than Olympias was?

Macedonian “royal women’ were, indeed, players. One can hardly imagine “civilised” city state women demoting and appointing regents or bunging on the show that was Triparadeisos.

I know that the official story is that Olympias carried the murders out without Alexander's knowledge. That Alexander was apparently unhappy about them and forced to murder Attalus as a consequence of Olympias' irrational actions. But I've always been a bit skeptical of this narrative, specially given Alexander's history with Attalus.

I realise that it seems to fit the “vengeful, murderous matriarch” meme, but the subsequent bout of similar “politico-cleansing”, on her later return to Macedonia with Plod-perchon, would serve to highlight that Olympias needed little encouragement in this regard.

Attalus was a dead man the moment that Antipater, in supporting Alexander’s acclamation, abandoned him. At that stage the nobility in Pella lined up behind Alexander; those of a contrary view were likely to find themselves well on the outer or, at worst, on a funeral pyre. We are told only of Alexander’s sending of Hecataeus but it is likely that, if Attalus was to be put out of the way, Antipater will have been involved. As Amyntoros says, he was the most senior of the Macedonians (that we know of) present. I’d think it safe to say that Antipater and Parmenio will have been in communication and the positions occupied by those of the house of Parmenio in the invasion army would seem to show he called not only the toss of the coin correctly.

Arrian, unfortunately for us, passes over the entire series of events with the pregnant phrase “once he (Alexander) had secured the regal power”. Seemingly a bout of dynastic blood-letting was not the picture of his hero he wished bequeathed to posterity.

[Fiona]

Well, we do have some small evidence of Antipater helping to secure the safety of Alexander of Aeropus. It can be found in Curtius at 7.5, shortly after the deaths of Philotas and Parmenion.

[5] When he learned that the men were present in large numbers, he marched into the meeting. Then Atarrhias began to make what was no doubt a pre-arranged demand that Alexander Lyncestes be brought before them (the man who, long before Philotas, had planned to assassinate the king). [6] This Alexander had been denounced by two informers, as I stated above, and was now in the third year of imprisonment. It was thought certain that he had also conspired with Pausanias to murder Philip, but the fact that he had been the first to salute Alexander as king had gained him a reprieve, though not an acquittal. [7] Moreover, the pleas of Lyncestes' father-in-law. Antipater, also served to reduce the king's warranted anger. But the festering resentment against him broke out afresh, for anxiety over the current crisis began to revive memories of the former one. [8] Alexander was therefore brought from confinement and told to plead his case.

Oh, that's not so bad then. Bosworth probably expected the reader to remember that bit, and it certainly does justify the words 'procure his safety'. It sounds as if it was Alexander listening to Antipater's pleas, rather than Alexander falling in with Antipater's wishes because of his dominance. It probably works both ways - Alexander is keen not to antagonise this powerful and reliable man, and Antipater is confident enough to make his pleas on behalf of his son-in-law, knowing that it's Alexander's decision, but aware that his own position is powerful enough for him to make such a plea in the first place. For I imagine that in the climate Plutarch describes for us:
"...his kingdom, which at that moment was beset by formidable jealousies and feuds...."
it might be quite a dangerous thing to stick up for an accused man!
Fiona

[Fiona]

I can't recall any challenge from Bosworth to Plutarch's narrative during my reading of the book. But perhaps Fiona and the others who are currently on that chapter could correct me.

You're quite right, no challenge, but he does phrase it rather well, not completely exonerating Alexander, while not contradicting Plutarch (or Pausanias). He says:
"While Alexander was temporarily away from the capital, she barbarously did to death both infant and mother. Alexander expressed horror at the deed, but he had apparently done nothing to protect the victims, and their deaths cannot have been unwelcome to him."

I don't buy it that Eurydice's son was a threat to Alexander, not once Attalus was dead. He was only a baby, and no matter how good at political scheming Eurydice had turned out to be, she couldn't have managed to produce him as a viable alternative to Alexander for at least x-teen years. (Lack of foresight on everyone's parts, because as we all know, by that time, a grown-up half-brother of Alexander, who was of sound mind could have been a jolly useful thing to have around!)
Clearly Alexander didn't consider his half-brother Arrhidaeus to be a threat, so why the baby? (And Caranus too, I suppose, if he existed.)
I think it was Olympias' jealousy, because there's just no real reason for Alexander to be killing baby half-brothers. He might even have been thinking of adopting one of them as his heir before he went, had not Olympias forestalled him, to shut up anyone who was nagging him to get married, so their deaths could, conceivably have been unwelcome to him.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Macedonian “royal women’ were, indeed, players. One can hardly imagine “civilised” city state women demoting and appointing regents or bunging on the show that was Triparadeisos.

Paralus,

Didn't Olympias herself served as regent in Molossus? The outrage!

I realise that it seems to fit the “vengeful, murderous matriarch” meme, but the subsequent bout of similar “politico-cleansing”, on her later return to Macedonia with Plod-perchon, would serve to highlight that Olympias needed little encouragement in this regard.

Yes, the meme - don't even get me started on the Greek accounts of Persian Royal women. Do you find Olympias more blood-thirsty than the rest involved in the scramble for Asia? Do you see Olympias as leaning more towards gratuitous violence? Say of the type Alexander displayed with the Branchidae? Or are we talking about the the efficient and ruthless kind that procures and secures empires, such as Alexander's destruction of Thebes?

[Semiramis]

You're quite right, no challenge, but he does phrase it rather well, not completely exonerating Alexander, while not contradicting Plutarch (or Pausanias). He says:
"While Alexander was temporarily away from the capital, she barbarously did to death both infant and mother. Alexander expressed horror at the deed, but he had apparently done nothing to protect the victims, and their deaths cannot have been unwelcome to him."

I don't buy it that Eurydice's son was a threat to Alexander, not once Attalus was dead. He was only a baby, and no matter how good at political scheming Eurydice had turned out to be, she couldn't have managed to produce him as a viable alternative to Alexander for at least x-teen years. (Lack of foresight on everyone's parts, because as we all know, by that time, a grown-up half-brother of Alexander, who was of sound mind could have been a jolly useful thing to have around!)
Clearly Alexander didn't consider his half-brother Arrhidaeus to be a threat, so why the baby? (And Caranus too, I suppose, if he existed.)
I think it was Olympias' jealousy, because there's just no real reason for Alexander to be killing baby half-brothers. He might even have been thinking of adopting one of them as his heir before he went, had not Olympias forestalled him, to shut up anyone who was nagging him to get married, so their deaths could, conceivably have been unwelcome to him.
Fiona

Thanks for the quote Fiona. Bosworth does phrase it well, doesn't he?

Phillip and Euridike's baby would have been an invaluable asset in the power struggle. Anyone - not just Attalus - who had aspirations to power could declare the baby the rightful heir and themselves regent. Especially relevant here is the story of Attalus praying at the wedding of Euridike and Phillip that the union would produce a legitimate Macedonian heir. Whether the baby would actually become king once he came of age was an entirely different matter. Those years would have been long enough for any regent to advance his own cause.

I imagine this would be the reason why Phillip II's brother Perdiccus III murdered his regent as soon as he ascended to the throne. It was Amyntas, the son of Perdiccus III, who was the rightful heir to the Macedonian throne. Phillip II declared himself regent immediately after Perdiccus III's death in battle while Amyntas was still very young. I think its safe to say that Phillip did quite well out of the arrangement. Similarly, after Alexander's death, Perdiccus was happy to use the (unborn) baby Alexander IV to advance his influence. I think the history of the Macedonian monarchy illustrates quite well why Euridike's baby would have been a threat to Alexander.

Arridaeus was an illegitimate son of Phillip and as you say, not of sound mind. The fact that he had Perdiccus as regent after Alexander's death pretty much confirms his lack of mental ability. So, it is possible that with Alexander alive, Arridaeus was not a viable alternative. Hence, not a challenge to Alexander. So, he could be left unmurdered, unlike the baby.

Arridaeus' wife Euridike seemed to have much political involvement during the period after Alexander's death, and is consequently painted as a bit of a harpy by the sources. No surprises there I guess.

[Fiona]

Phillip and Euridike's baby would have been an invaluable asset in the power struggle. Anyone - not just Attalus - who had aspirations to power could declare the baby the rightful heir and themselves regent. Especially relevant here is the story of Attalus praying at the wedding of Euridike and Phillip that the union would produce a legitimate Macedonian heir. Whether the baby would actually become king once he came of age was an entirely different matter. Those years would have been long enough for any regent to advance his own cause.

True, but it couldn't have been just anyone - the would-be regent would have had to be a person of some consequence, with a power base of his or her own, and with Attalus dead and Parmenion and Antipater 'on side', who else was there?

Arridaeus was an illegitimate son of Phillip and as you say, not of sound mind. The fact that he had Perdiccus as regent after Alexander's death pretty much confirms his lack of mental ability. So, it is possible that with Alexander alive, Arridaeus was not a viable alternative. Hence, not a challenge to Alexander. So, he could be left unmurdered, unlike the baby.

Well, without getting into a 'Perdiccas was OK' argument, , I think it is not definite that Arrhidaeus was illegitimate. Heckel does not think so, and while that doesn't prove it, it does prove that the matter is debatable. (He has Philine as married to Philip, and probably a member of the aristocracy of Larissa, and dismisses tales that she was a dancing-girl as inventions intended to discredit the then Philip III.)
If that is correct, then the would-be regent could have picked Arrhidaeus as his puppet, on the strong grounds that he was the eldest son, but this didn't happen, even though he was left alive. I think this supports the view that there simply wasn't a would-be regent and that therefore from Alexander's point of view, the death of Eurydice's son (don't we have a name?) was unneccessary, and the motive was all Olympias'.
Fiona

[marcus]

I think it is not definite that Arrhidaeus was illegitimate. Heckel does not think so, and while that doesn't prove it, it does prove that the matter is debatable. (He has Philine as married to Philip, and probably a member of the aristocracy of Larissa, and dismisses tales that she was a dancing-girl as inventions intended to discredit the then Philip III.)

That is so - there is no evidence that Arrhidaeus was illegitimate, beyond the slurs projected by later propagandists (the "dancing girl" bit), and the prurience of people like Tarn.

ATB

[Semiramis]

True, but it couldn't have been just anyone - the would-be regent would have had to be a person of some consequence, with a power base of his or her own, and with Attalus dead and Parmenion and Antipater 'on side', who else was there?

I doubt there was ever a lack of ambitious nobles in Pella. We can't assume that all the notables have been mentioned in our sources. People can also switch sides given the opportunity. Judging by the fates of Parmenion and Philotas, no alliance was permanent.

Well, without getting into a 'Perdiccas was OK' argument, , I think it is not definite that Arrhidaeus was illegitimate. Heckel does not think so, and while that doesn't prove it, it does prove that the matter is debatable. (He has Philine as married to Philip, and probably a member of the aristocracy of Larissa, and dismisses tales that she was a dancing-girl as inventions intended to discredit the then Philip III.)
If that is correct, then the would-be regent could have picked Arrhidaeus as his puppet, on the strong grounds that he was the eldest son, but this didn't happen, even though he was left alive. I think this supports the view that there simply wasn't a would-be regent and that therefore from Alexander's point of view, the death of Eurydice's son (don't we have a name?) was unneccessary, and the motive was all Olympias'.
Fiona

I like your take on the dancing girl story. Arridaeus being legitimate also makes better sense of the Satrap's daughter wedding debacle as well. To me it still seems that the mental deficiencies ruled him out as a contender while Alexander was still alive. So, I'm going to stick to my original take on Euridike's baby. Accession struggles in the Argead household come across as particularly cut-throat in nature. Have you read Elizabeth Carney's "Women and Monarchy in Ancient Macedonia"? It's a great read on the topic.

[Fiona]

2:2 Consolidation in Europe

I am full of admiration for Bosworth in this chapter, which is full to bursting with difficult geography. I wouldn’t say I had completely got my head round all the northern tribes yet, or which one featured in which bit of the campaign, or which river valley or mountain pass led to which territory, but Bosworth’s succinct but detailed summary has brought me close than I’ve ever been before.
If I’ve got this right, first we have the defeat of the Thracians and the Triballians, who presumably had not been peaceful neighbours, as Bosworth doesn’t condemn Alexander for fighting them, other than to point out that the Thracians didn’t have very good weapons. Then the Getae come down to the Danube, but defeating them was apparently ‘gratuitous terrorism’. Hmm. I see what he means – crossing the Danube was probably a straw-stuffed tent too far – but if you send an army to Alexander, of course he’s going to fight it. Still, they weren’t to know that, so it was hard on them.
Then this provokes lots of embassies, and people wanting to make friends instead of being wiped out. Very understandable, and I bet the Getae wished they’d done that too, because it seems that all these embassies were welcomed and given alliances.
I am glad to see here a comment from Bosworth on Alexander’s miltary prowess, which might otherwise have been overlooked in his praises for the formidable phalanx. He also praises Alexander’s speed, as Alexander next moves to deal with the Illyrians.
Alexander’s ally, Langarus of the Agrianians, is an interesting character. You get the feeling that they had a lot in common, and there was some mutual admiration there, and it would be good to know more about when they met and what happened.
Then after they have impressed and awed the Illyrians, it’s the fast move down to Thebes, and then back to Macedon. Quite a year – it’s just amazing how far they went in such a short time, and how much action they saw.
The attack on Thebes is described in very useful detail and I appreciated how Bosworth tells us how the sources vary and why they might do so. It leaves me not feeling too sure exactly what happened, but I am sure he is right when he says:
“The tragedy was inevitable once the Thebans decided on resistance.”
It is easy to admire the stubbornness that won’t give in even when defeat is likely, but personally I won’t condemn the stronger side for proceeding to make mincemeat of a weaker enemy that’s been given every chance to surrender.
I thought the end of the chapter, summarising events in Persia too, was very interesting because it seemed as if Bosworth was drawing parallels between Alexander’s situation and Darius’, especially in their attempts to pacify and control outlying areas. He also paints a worse picture than I had thought of the situation of the Macedonian advance force. He makes them sound as if they were really on the defensive and practically being pushed back into the sea.
The scene is set for the next chapter!
What I am left with more than anything is amazement at the speed. They didn’t even have maps, for goodness’ sake! Or roads. And that bit about cutting steps into the mountain is just the stuff of legends, the kind of thing that puts Alexander into a class of his own.
Well, as usual just some personal thoughts and impressions – I would love to read yours, too.

Fiona

[marcus]

What I am left with more than anything is amazement at the speed. They didn’t even have maps, for goodness’ sake! Or roads.

I'm not sure that they didn't have maps, actually. Still, even without them, there would have been plenty of people in the army or at least in the vicinity who knew the landscape and the geography - possibly that of the Thracian/Illyrian areas better than that of central Greece, in fact. Remember that it's always shepherds and other locals who show armies the way across the hillsides to come upon the enemy unawares?

Also, it has to be said that when Alexander descended from Thessaly into Central Greece, there would only have been a limited number of passes through the mountains - easy enough not to get lost!

As for roads - no, not as we know them, and certainly not wide enough for the entire army to march along; but there were "roads", which led from A to B - so finding Thebes wouldn't have been too difficult. And I'm sure that we all tend to underestimate what Thrace and Illyria were like, too - just because they were "barbarians" does not mean that they were savages living in an untamed wilderness - remember Alexander's phalanx marching through the cornfields?

ATB