pothos.org

Yes, I agree.I think that all the Persian Royals within easy reach of Babylon died very soon after - Curtius' account, for what it's worth, seems to imply that this is what had happened after Ochus' death. Justin might imply that Heracles was in Babylon, altough it's very vague. I can't imagine that Alexander would have left a son at some distance - even an illegitimate one. The only doubt in my mind is that as Alexander was setting off on campaign, wouldn't he have left his women somewhere cooler than Babylon in the summer? Perhaps he didn't want to leave Roxane, Statiera and Barsine together - he would have remembered the rivalries amongst his father's wives.
The trouble, I find, if that if we strip away Curtius' rhetorical bits there's not much left to go on with. Last night I actually dreamt that I was reading a parchment which contained a different account, but I only read the first few words - very frustrating ! I dopn't think that dreams would be allowable evidence anyway.RegardsSusan

Yes, Alexander would definitely have tried to avoid strife amongst the women and kept them apart - it is very unlikely he would have left either Barsine (because she had a son already on the ground) or Roxane anywhere near the other Royals - that could be dangerous if more male children were going to come. I think we would find this mirrored in Argeads as well. It reminds me of the cult of the Hyena. From birth their only concern is to kill their siblings so only one could be Queen. In Argeads it appears, only full brothers could tolerate each other and then only barely.Regards,Tre

Plutarch does say that Perdikkas assisted Roxane in her plot though the extent of his guilt is left vague and may have extended to sealing the false letter; however Curtius has him remove the seal-ring and place it on the throne during the period of discussion over the succession. Curtius condenses the action into a single contio bur the account of Hieronymos in Diodoros and probably Ta Meta Alex. imply a longer period with the army being located away from the Companions; Meleagros is sent to the infantry as an envoy but makes a volte-face and joins them.Given the length of time and the importance of these negotiations it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the Generals attentions were fully absorbed in pressing their own cases allowing Roxane a free-hand.And it is a mistake to think she was unimportant; she was bearing the child that would be born first and therefore the senior heir should it prove male. She was in Babylon and had the support of Perdikkas who was in a position of power as chiliarch.The problem, of course, comes down to the sources. The story appears only at the truncated end of Plutarch's 'Alexander' among a rather sensational and gossipy resume of the poisoning story and the fates of Arrhidaeus etc.As Susan points out the abscence of this lurid tale by Curtius is telling, as is its omission by Diodoros and Curtius. We can be sure that Curtius and Diodoros are using Hieronymus of Kardia at this point and therefore that he did not tell it. Judging from the tenor of the story I would suggest Duris Of Samos as the source as he is criticised as an author of 'dramatic history'. So the question is how much can we rely on his testimony?He was contempory with events, cannot have had any reason to invent the story (except perhaps as an apologia for Kassander's murder of Roxane)so little remains of his work that a fair assessment is impossible.However, Stateira does vanish, probably with an unborn child other sources would have vilified Perdikkas more or blamed Kassander maybe. On balance I prefer to keep the story as is not least because it is a good one but its historicity must remain in doubt, though I can see no objection to its plausibility.

Karl, we do not know if indeed Roxane's child would have been older than Statiera's since we know nothing of her pregnancy or if indeed she was pregnant (not the kind of thing Alexander would overlook in my opinion).Nor should we assume the eldest son would get the crown. We don't have enough of a pattern to judge that from the Argead history, and that example has to do with full brothers, not half brothers as they would have been. It would have been whoever was the strongest at the time of accession but that point is moot - the generals all wanted to be Kings themselves and they weren't going to let that happen.Regards,Tre

I think the normal practice was for the eldest son to succeed and since no child of Stateira is mentioned we may assume that her pregnancy was not advanced enough to show; had the generals known she was pregnant one of them would have been sure to form a party promoting her childs claim. I agree with your point about the Diadochoi and their aspirations, which is why I am sure we would have heard had her pregnancy been more than six months gone (eight if we take Justin's figure for Roxane's)this would have been a powerful card to hold. Hence Perdikkas' acquiescence in her possible murder.There is a remote possibility that the child of Barsine promoted by Nearchos was Stateira's since she is also called Barsine in some sources (but not I fancy in Hieronymos whom Curtius is following)

Hello Karl:None of the generals would have allowed Statiera to give birth, it would not have mattered at what stage of pregnancy she was at - her child was the rightful heir and they knew it - there was no way they would allow the Persians (or for that matter the army) to rally around that child or the Royal family. Since Darius' young son was certainly eliminated, the entire clan within reach had to go. Ancient politics in motion - remove any potential source of revenge. I can't prove it historically, but Alexander probably assigned Perdikkas with her care and his hands were tied. He certainly exercised some control over her as well. Had she produced a daughter, who would have been seen as very valuable for a general's cause, it would have been very interesting indeed.I am aware of the name confusion between Barsine/Statiera and also some scholarship that doubts Herakles issue. A legitimate heir of Alexander would not have been denied so easily. If one follows an emerging pattern, Barsine becomes pregnant around Alexander's marriage to Roxane, Roxane becomes pregnant after the marriage to Statiera - is this a form of apologia/protection perhaps?Regards,Tre

Hi Tre -You wrote:
I didn't get what I'm saying from Carney [...] I would say I disagree with many of her theories, although I appreciate her scholarshipSame with me. I did not imply that you based your question on Carney. I know you have read more on the subject than many of us.You wrote:
Don't forget much of the sources on Ancient Persia considered Persian men to be like women so the reverse was also displayed, therefore, the women had to be strong and powerful, because the men were lacking.This is exactly the point where we disagree. The view presented here has been challenged, if not eliminated, by many modern studies of the Persian empire. Also the "so" and "therefore" reasoning in your post is - if I may say so - wrong and still does not take into account what it is to be born and live in a totally different society. This is indeed my main objection to your approach.You wrote:
What it has to do with is the Macedonian generals who controlled the empireYes, and I will gladly admit that my reasoning has a hidden assumption too: as Alexander copied much of the Persian system of ruling the country (satrapies, local nobility) due to the hastily conquest of such a great realm, the old Persian way of administration wasn't quite 'gone' by the time of Alexander's death. OK, the 'reign of terror' eliminated many Persians from prominent positions - but you can not erase a system that lasted two centuries over such a magnificent territory within a few years.You wrote:
The Persian Royal females were dead and the lucky females were humiliated by divorce.Correction: only those Persian Royal females that we know by name.You wrote:
But you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that after her husband's death she was anything more than a well treated captiveExample: Plutarch 77. "In this crime her accomplice was Perdiccas." We have to be critical of sources, I know, I know, but sorry: the sources is what we have. She was not the accomplice of Perdiccas, but he was the accomplice of her.Any critical examination of sources should be as free as possible from cultural values that we invariably carry with us today. I rest my case.Oh, about feminine and masculine (not: male) cultural values: many, many books have been written about that - especially in my subject. Nice reading. I can recommend it!Best regards -
Nick

Nick:At the risk of getting even further off topic and this getting unpleasant, I am going to end this part of the thread.We will have to agree to disagree.Regards,Tre

Sorry, Karl, I was referring to Roxane when I said Perdikkas was probably assigned to his care, and if she had a daughter.

Barsine and Herkles showed up in Asia Minor (Ephesus and Pergamum) after that so I don't think they were still in Babylon at the time of Alexander's death. I've never run across anything indicating they were, anyway.

RuthBarsine & Heracles were in Pergamum 14 years later, around 310 - so that is no indication where they were at Alexander's death. We don't know when Heracles was born - it could be 327, 324 or any othr date depending on the confidence that you place in Diodorus or Justin. Alexander certainly was not in Pergamum 9 months earlier, so Barsine can't be considered to be only living there.This is the point of my post - where was she in 323, not in 310 - we know that.RegardsSusan

Actually I'm a bit suspicious of the whole Barsine matter... We have:Stateira - Darius' wife , captured at Issus, rumours of a pregnancy by Alexander - but the dates are confused. If she died in childbirth and the dates are right, it must surely have been Alexander's; in which case the other sources are wrong, which praise Alexander's self-restraint, so we already have an inconsistency.
Stateira-Barsine, Darius & Stateira's daughter, married to Alexander, rumours of a pregnancy around 323. They married in summer 324; Alexander left Susa in the winter after Hephaestion's death, so this might give some indication of her possible pregnancy dates, if she stayed in Susa.Barsine, Artabazus' daughter, captured at Issus, had a son Heracles by Alexander 327 or 324.There seem too many similarities. There are many possibilities of confusion here - and in the ancient sources there would have been much more as it would have been harder to make cross-checks.I feel instinctively that what we are seeing in the sources is an attempt to make some order out of disjoint facts - sources read about Barsine, Artabazus' daughter, who had a possible heir, and confused her with Darius' daughter who may or may not have been called Barsine,and who may have been pregnant. I 'm sure that the instinct, then as now, would have been to make some consistent picture, even if it was incorrect, which is why the accounts differ. The references in Justin seem to me to be just as likely based on two accounts of Alexander IV's death, that Justin or Trogus added polishing touches to and assigned to different people, rather than two distinct people. They are both about 14-year-old sons of Alexander and their mothers, done to death in Macedonia. Justin seems very muddled - if we take what he says as truth in this case, we must also take the other stuff about Alexander with equal weight - which we generally do not do.Has anyone got any other ideas ?
RegardsSusan

Another thought - Stateira's entourage would have been suspicious of any summons around Alexander's illness - they would have known that it was a dangerous time. Would they not have checked the seal on the letter?If the letter was sent in Alexander's name, it would have surely have been sealed with his ring - and who had that - Perdiccas. So I think he was involved.Susan

It is accepted that Perdikkas was involved as Plutarch names him as an accomplice (I don't have a Greek Plutarch however so cannot comment on the implications of the Greek word- Pearson is silent on the matter but seems to have lost interest by the end of his commentary!). There is a possible doubt as ti the nature of his complicity ie before or after the fact. Assuming one accepts the story of course.Diodoros is thought to preserve Hieronymos of Cardia who was well placed and exhaustive a History in 80 books! So we can trust his testimony as long as we are aware that he was a friend of Eumenes and then of the Antigonids. Since Eumenes was Perdikkas' ally and appointee there could be a case for his suppressing this murder story. As usual though there is really only speculation and isn't that the joy of ancient history? The sources are available to all so any speculation has some value.As an aside is there an on line Dionysius of Halicarnassus as there is a reference to an obscure Alexander writer in his Critical Essays and I don't want to pay -ú15 for a Loeb for the sake of one line! Cheers

Hi Karl
Perseus is down at present, I'll look later today. I can't find any reference in the online Suda, http://www.stoa.org, but I did notice this biography of Antipater:
Son of Iolaos, from the city of Palioura in Macedonia, general of Philip [II], then of Alexander [the Great], and successor to the kingship; a pupil of Aristotle. He left a compilation of letters in 2 books and a history, The Illyrian Deeds of Perdikkas. And he served as guardian to the son of Alexander known as Herakles.[1] He alone of the Successors he did not choose to call Alexander a god, judging this impious. He lived 77 years and left a son and successor, Kassandros,[2] the man who killed Alexander's mother, Olympias.[3]So, we have another link of a Perdikkas with Illyria - and also that Antipater was Heracles' guardian.Do you want me to post the Suda biography of Alexander ? It's mainly gossip, nothing very new.Susan