Xenophon wrote:Oh dear! I detect a whiff of a digression coming on regarding the whole settlement at Triparadeisos thing ! For the moment let us stick to the subject of Herakles.
This little pre-emptive poke is totally unnecessary for, as I wrote, the Babylonian Settlement is a key piece of the puzzle. Why? Because it is here that the subject of Herakles, as a candidate for king, is first mentioned. It clearly relates to the “subject of Herakles”.
Xenophon wrote:Not at all. All five make reference to the Babylonian settlement, albeit in some cases very briefly, and the point is that the only living son of Alexander – an obvious successor one might think, is apparently totally ignored by three of our major sources.
There is a disconnect here. It is a matter of whether an author actually relates the Babylonian Settlement and, if he does, in what amount of detail, if any. Xenophon disparages this an "argument from words"; it is, in fact, an argument from detail. The rude fact is that Diodorus and Photios have reduced a serious affair which covered near a week (possibly more) to little more than a paragraph. Photios has produced no more than a collection of headlines and Diodorus is just as bad. Curtius has treated it fully and even Justin does it justice. The amount of material available to each of the former (particularly Photios) was far, far more as Curtius shows - whether or not he (they including Justin!) found it in some conveniently conjectured "Hellenistic source" (just which source is this?). Arrian covered 323- 319 in ten books: far more detail than his Anabasis Alexandrou. One can only imagine the extent of his treatment of this episode. This has been cut to ribbons by Photios. As I've said, summarising, by definition, leaves matters out - here whole tranches clearly. Ditto for Diodorus as Bosworth observes(Legacy of Alexander, p 34):
Most of the sources are the briefest of epitomes. Photius' excerpts of Arrian and Dexippus are dominated by the catalogue of satrapal appointments; they are practically uninformative about the events which led to the settlement. The same can be said of Diodorus, who is at his most laconic when describing the political conflict at Babylon...
Indeed they are practically uninformative as they leave much out; most in fact. Plutarch, as I’ve been at pains to point out, does not deal with it at all and claiming that he does not mention Herakles as a candidate in a process he nowhere ventures to describe is completely moot. He also doesn’t know of the battle of Paraitekene but no one suggests it didn’t happen. Xenophon would argue for the silence of two exceptionally severe summaries and Plutarch, who does not report on the Settlement at all, in preference to our two most fulsome sources on the matter.
Xenophon wrote:Not quite. Plutarch knows of Heracles existence, as one would expect of a writer having the benefit of several hundred years hindsight. He says [Eumenes 1] “For Barsiné the daughter of Artabazus, the first woman whom Alexander knew in Asia, and by whom he had a son, Heracles, had two sisters....”
...but, like Sherlock Holmes dog that did not bark in the night, he never mentions Heracles being a candidate, merely briefly explaining of the Babylon settlement that Roxanne was pregnant and that Perdiccas came to power “using Arrhidaeus as a figurehead” in less than 160 words [Alexander 77]. Either his sources did not mention Heracles candidature, or else Plutarch did not believe it.
Quite indeed. Plutarch does not mention Herakles as a candidate for the kingship because, as I've been at pains to relate, Plutarch
nowhere relates the Babylonian Settlement at all no matter how he might wish to argue such. The passage to which Xenophon refers does not deal with the Settlement at all but merely reports that Roxanne murdered Stateira with Perdikkas’ approval
after he had gained power. This is all post the machinations in Babylon which saw Herakles promoted as a possible heir, not a part of it. His only allusion to it is
Eumenes, 3.1, where the point is to showcase Eumenes’sedulous support of Perdikkas. Plutarch does not bother to describe the process and the various propositions at all, anywhere. To claim Plutarch as a source for the Babylonian Settlement stretches credulity: there is no dog either Holmes’ or Plutarch’s.
Xenophon wrote:It is a legal maxim that ‘evidence is weighed, not counted.’ We do not judge the veracity of our sources by how loquacious they are!
No, but we do judge our sources, or weigh our evidence, on the detail it contains. On that account both Photios and Diodorus are seriously lacking on any measure. Even that of Xenophon's perennial legal maxims.
Xenophon wrote:Many eminent scholars interpret these two passages as fictional interpolations. ( e.g. Meeus gives Hammond and Boerma as prominent examples). They seem to be inserted merely to ‘clear’ the claim of an alleged son who would in reality not pop up for another dozen years, as Mary Renault said.
Meeus (
The power struggle of the Diadochoi in Babylon, 323 BC, Ancient Society 38 [2008], 39-82), in fact, says nothing of the sort. He actually writes (p 42) that some scholars believe the “contents of the debates in the first meeting after Alexander’s death” are “largely fictitious”. The whole debates not simply the notices about Herakles. The reason, for both Hammond and Boerma (see n 16, p42), is that they reflect Roman prejudices, not Macedonian. Very little to do with two particular notices being inserted to “clear the claim of an alleged son”. Boerma felt that Nearkhos could not be present at such a meeting but, as Alexander’s boyhood friend and one of his most senior commanders (of his fleet) that is unpersuasive as Meeus notes saying that “to propose making a son – albeit a bastard – king immediately after the idea to appoint an unborn son was brought forward, is logic in itself” (47-48).
Xenophon wrote:Yet if that objection was ultimately waived, why did the same not apply to Heracles, assuming he really was around? Perdiccas supposedly championed Roxanne's unborn child ( who might be a girl! ), so that, as Regent he might hold power ( after his own claim to Kingship was rejected). Would it not have been more logical to champion Heracles, had he been around?
Perdikkas wanted the kingship but he baulked at the precipice. The next best option was regent for an unborn child of Alexander for this will unarguably be the legitimate offspring of the dead king. Herakles gives Perdikkas some 11-12 years; Roxanne’s offspring 17 or so. If the conclave agreed with this Perdikkas is king in all but name and even more so, as Bosworth observes (Legacy of Alexander. p 45), were that child a girl. It was for this very reason that he was so vehemently opposed by the conclave.
Xenophon wrote:Justin [XIII.2] has Ptolemy object to Arrhidaeus’ candidature as a “bastard”, and a low-born one at that, as well as his mental incapacity. If Heracles was really around at the time, he was at least a “Royal” bastard, and of sound mind. Wouldn’t Arrhidaeus be more likely to be ‘sidelined’? Your logic is flawed here.
Justin does no such thing. He has Ptolemy object on the grounds that Arrhidaios is mentally unfit and Philip’s son by a lowly woman (a ‘prostitute’ –
scorto) so as to press his own solution. He nowhere claims him a bastard and it is unlikely in the extreme that Philip II would be likely to conciliate Thessaly by marrying a prostitute (see Anthenaeus 13.557). The Macedonians clearly considered him a legitimate son of Philip and a brother to Alexander.
Herakles, on the other hand, is the offspring of no such marriage. Although Barsine was of noble blood – her father, Artabazos, being the grandson of Artaxerxes II – she was not ever Alexander’s wife, only a concubine or mistress (who had more than one child prior to her relationship with Alexander contra Xenophon's view – see Curtius 3.13.14). Thus Perdikkas’ preference for Alexander’s offspring and the troops’ preference for Philip’s other son.
Xenophon wrote: Paralus wrote:To suggest that the king's closest companions and his adjutants (the somatophyhlakes whose duty was to guard him) would be completely unaware of whether the king had a son by this mistress is more than odd.
Why, since Barsine was supposedly sent to obscure Pergamum to have her baby and bring him up? At best they might hear rumours. No one could say for certain if Barsine had a child, let alone that it was Alexander's. Like I said, no DNA tests back then.
The DNA thing is nothing more than a distraction. Barsine was likely with Alexander at the very least until such time as he’d defeated Dareios and conciliated her important father, Artabazos. This happened in Hyrcania in 330 (Arr. 23.7). Alexander appointed him satrap of Bactria after he’d operated against Satibarzanes on Alexander’s behalf. Barsine, as a mistress, was as least as political as she was a “love” interest. Alexander’s closest confidants will have well known of the relationship – Parmenion suggested it - and the fact of Barsine’s pregnancy and its result. One would hardly suggest that others were fathering children on the king’s mistress.
Barsine became less important – and with her any child she may have or be carrying of Alexander’s – once Alexander married Roxanne in 327. If Curtius’ date is right, Barsine gave birth to Herakles in the same year Alexander married and Artabazos, after one year or so as satrap, decided, at the same time, to retire likely as a consequence.
Nothing suggests Barsine went to Pergamon at this stage, though that is a possibility. We only know that is where she was at the time of the Babylonian Settlement. In fact, Eumenes and Ptolemy are given Barsine’s sisters as wives at the mass weddings (Plut.
Eum. 1.3) suggesting that Barsine was with the royal retinue. At these weddings, Alexander finally married directly into the Persian royal family thus not only relegating Roxanne but also further ‘demoting’ Barsine. It is likely now that retirement to Pergamon took place. It should be remembered that Artabazos had been satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia and in command of the entire seaboard in Philip’s time. That he may have had holdings at Pergamon should not be surprise. Roxanne had little to fear from Barsine and her child. Once she became pregnant to Alexander and he married Statiera, she most certainly had much to concern her and it was not Barsine or Herakles. Hence the murder.
Xenophon wrote: The problem is that we have no real direct evidence of Heracles until 12 years after A.’s death, when he is 17 and briefly becomes a claimant, and we must rely on circumstantial evidence of his existence prior to that, as related by sources applying hindsight, which must of necessity be suspect.
Sources applying hindsight? The two most fulsome sources dealing with the Babylonian Settlement clearly and unambiguously have Herakles as a claimant in those proceedings. To suggest that both Curtius and Trogus (via Justin) invented these notices as some way of legitimising or explaining a “pretender” twelve years later is no more convincing than Xenophon's repeated “three of five sources” mantra. Even Plutarch, in a passage showcasing the Kardian’s close relationship to Alexander (
Eum. 1.3), states that Alexander had a son, Herakles, by Barsine whose sister he married to Eumenes. The point Plutarch is making here is that Eumenes is considered close enough to the king to be honoured by marrying the sister of a woman who was held in esteem by the king and was the mother of his (illegitimate) child.
Xenophon wrote:A very good point, Alexias. Perdiccas would not have been the only one to appreciate the advantages of controlling a 'Royal heir', or even a potential one. If Heracles had been around, we might expect that either or both of them would have taken him into custody 'for his own protection', but there's no hint of anything like this….
If Heracles had really been living quietly in Pergamon for a dozen years, it seems incredible that no-one thought to 'secure' him in all those turbulent times.......and one can only speculate what Antipater or Antigonus might have achieved using him.
Antigonos was in no position to be taking anyone into custody to further his own ambitions. The royal army and its high command, along with Alexander’s somatophylakes, were in Babylon and this was where the power resided (aside from Kratros’ veterans in Kilikia). Taking the boy into custody would gain Antigonos nothing other than the enmity of those in Babylon. Antigonos needed to bide his time – as he did.
As for Perdikkas (or any other marshal) taking Herakles into custody, the king’s death took everyone by surprise as the sources make plain. There was no precedent whatsoever for what was now to occur. Indeed, they asked Alexander, before his death, whether he would name a successor to no avail. This was a “developing situation” not a planned one. In any case, after matters had settled and Antigonos emerged as ruler of Asia, Barsine and Herakles were as much under Antigonos’ control as was Kleopatra.
Xenophon wrote:Indeed, Diodorus, makes statements which deny Heracles’ existence. In particular, he states that Alexander was “childless” at his death [Diod XVIII.2], that “he left no sons as successors to the kingdom” [XVIII.9] and that Cassander believed there would be no successor to the kingdom if he killed Alexander IV. [Diod.XIX.52 and 105]. For Diodorus then, the Heracles of [XX.20] must have been a pretender.
Not at all. These statements only state the obvious: that Alexander had no successor for he had no legitimate issue when he died. It is something more than a stretch to claim that this then means that his illegitimate issue did not exist. Even more of a stretch is claiming that Diodorus thought him a pretender. Had that been so he might just as well have said so at 20.20.1 and 28.1. He did not. As for Kassandros, he would be well aware that Herakles was dismissed as a candidate at Babylon and could expect that attitudes hadn’t altered. He was wrong.