Cassander as Regent?

[kenny]

Companions.Ive always wondered Cassander roll as Regent following Antipater and Alexander.Following Alexanders murder by thge same guy,, As regent was not Cassanders roll as such to safe guard Alexanders son till he became of age to be king.Just how did Cassander get into the position to murder the legitimate air to the throne without anything said about him getting power, Was Cassander a tyrant and dictator in the fashion that he used fear and intimidation to submit those to his will.Basically how did this little phsycho who shuddered at the site of Alexanders statues get away with wiping out Alexanders blood line?Kenny

[abm]

Cassander was appointed regent by Eurydike, the wife of Philip III, in order to gain his support in her power struggle against Olympias and Polyperchon. This was thus strictly speaking not really an official appointment (although it is not clear whether there was an exact procedure for appointing regents in Macedon).Eliminating Olympias was rather easy for him, as she had made a lot of ennemies because of her harsh actions after killing Philip III and Eurydike: he called together a law court consisting of family members of Olympias' victims, who were of course willing to condemn her to death.Once Olympias was executed and Polyperchon had lost most of his power Cassander was the only one present in Macedon proper who was powerfull enough. He could thus do more or less what he wanted. There evidently was protest against his actions, e.g. by Antigonos, who therefore proclaimed himself as the only lawful regent. There must also have been opposition in Macedon proper, but we do not know about it.The peace treaty (between Antigonos, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachos) of 311, which concluded the Third Diadoch War, stated that all parties would stay in control of the territory they held at that time. In Cassander's case the treaty added "until Alexander IV comes of age" (some scholars assume this applied also to the parties involved). This treaty is thus considered to be the actual death warrant of Alexander IV, since Cassander evidently did not want to lose his power. Many scholars even assume that the statement concerning Alexander IV was included in the treaty because all the Successors knew this actually meant his death warrant and they wanted that.Shortly after this treaty was concluded, some Macedonians claimed that Alexander IV should at that time be given the throne, and that was when Cassander effectively decided to kill him and his mother. We know of no condemnation whatsoever of this action by any of the other Successors.To conclude, the answer to your question is very simple: there were too much powerfull men in the Macedonian empire after Alexander's death and none of them really was interested in maintaining Argead power, since they all wanted it for themselves.

[justme]

Hail Kenny,Remember that Phillip was also a regent for his nephew. While he didn't kill the true heir, he certainly kept the power once it was in his hands.I suspect that Cassander was probably more threatened by Alexander's legacy than anything else. While Phillip obviously had enough presence to take the power for himself without murder, Cassander had to kill the prince to kill Alexander's legacy and keep the power for himself.I don't know enough about his rule to comment on whether he was a tyrant or not. I'd like to hear others' comments on the issue.Regards,
Lois

[kenny]

ABM hailThanks for your post, It was a real education as to what occured following Alexanders Murder,, Forgive when I say murder but its truely what I believe.With your information it adds credence to my remote opinion that Alexannder and Hepheastion were indeed murder, The action following Alexanders death would have been exactly the result the co signers wanted,,Individual power and wealth in there chosen parts of the empire,,, Back to old basics and no sharing with the Asians,,, Its almost certain that had Alexander lived none of the beneficiaries or hardly any would have got what they ended up with.Lets face it Alexander was creating a new world order, totally un biased and equal amongst his people all was gonna change and these guys were not having it.Kenny

[ruthaki]

Well, Kenny, perhaps if I can ever get this novel finished you can read all about it, because that's the period I am writing about (from Alexander's 'suspicious' death to the murder of his only heir.) Of course, Kassandros makes an excellent 'villain' for my novel. ruthaki

[abm]

hi kenny,with all due respect for your own opinion, but i doubt whether the history of the Successors can tell us anything about the cause of Alexander's death. There is no real evidence for murder and one can not say that Alexander and Hephaistion really had a healthy lifestyle. Others, such as Koinos, died of disease too and Krateros was very ill in 324 when Alexander sent him home (some scholars even assume -implausibly- that Alexander thought he wouldn't survive). I think the great ambitions of the Successor's developped out of the situation at Alexander's death. There was no competent heir, since Arrhidaios was not really capable of ruling, and a strong leader was urgently needed. At that time they all saw their chance to get supreme power themselves. The situation certainly was influenced by the fact that Alexander had eliminated all his opponents at the time of his accession. One might wonder what had happened if e.g. Amyntas were still alive in 323. This is not to say that non of the Diadochoi would have tried to gain power in that situation, but things would certainly have been very differnt if there had been a competent male Argead present.It is certainly true that not all macedonian nobles agreed with Alexander's oriental policy, but whether this would have been a reason to kill him for any of them is questionable. One would of course like to know more about Alexander's attitude towards to the subject peoples, but i'm not sure whether his motives really were that noble. Probably he simply realised that it would be impossible to keep the empire together if didn't make some concessions toward the Asians. Nonetheless, throughout the ages few conquerers have realised this and Alexander is to be credited for it. Some of the generals certainly agreed with Alexander absolutely or to a large extent: hephaistion; Peukestas, who also adopted Persian dress and learned the language; Seleukos, who retained his Asian wife and whose successor thus was an half Asian; and probably also Perdikkas. The fact we do not know what happened to any of the other oriental wives (except for Krateros'), does not mean they all were repudiated. Moreover all the successor saw the need of having native troops in their army and acted acoordingly. Consequently, it is very likely, i think, that even those who thought Alexander went too far in having an half Asian heir, understanded the need of Alexander's policy and wouldn't kill him for it.i would also like to add som

[abm]

i would also like to add some points to your first post: Alexander's bloodline was of course not entirely wiped out at the death of Alexander IV: Kleopatra was killed in 308, and Cassander's children by Thessalonike of course had Argead blood. Thus only at their death in 294 was the Argead bloodline entirely eliminated.furthermore one needs to reckon with the 'tradition' of regicide in Argead Macedon, which made Cassander's actions not as extreme as they seem to us now and let's, again, not forget that Alexander was also partly responsible for wiping out his own dynasty.your description of Cassander as "little phsycho who shuddered at the site of Alexanders statues" is in my opinion a little too harsh. I do not see why you deem him a "psycho" and the story of his shivering at the sight of Alexander's statue is probably untrue. Actually i would say it is evidently untrue. They had of course never seen a horror movie, but shivering at the sight of a normal statue does seem more like a rhetorical way of pointing out a presumed attitude of Cassander towards Alexander, than like a true fact. Moreover the view of Cassander really hating Alexander is not very likely either, as has been convincingly argued by P. Goukowsky in his book 'Les origines du mythe d'Alexandre' and endrosed by F. Chamoux in his article 'Diodore et la Mac+¬doine' in 'Ancient Macedonia III'. These last decades have also seen a reassessment of Antipater's relations with Alexander.The question whether Cassander was a tyrant is not easy to answer. If a tyrant is someone who rules by force and not by law, we would need to know more about Macedonian law (a very debated question) and of Cassander's domestic policies. By modern standards one could certainly say he was, but it that case one could also say Alexander was a tyrant (as some now do). So the question really is not that easy as it might seem.I hope have answered your question more completely now (and more balanced).regards,abm

[xxx]

What Cassander was and ended up being, was a great waste of time for Macedon. Based on the behavior of two of his three sons one can make a fair assumption he was a lousy father and role model. I think it also evident Alexander and Cassander did not get along at all because he never went on campaign with the King, whether or not one believes the incident of Alexander bouncing his head off a wall.The fact that Antipater on his death did not choose his own son to be Regent, speaks more about Cassander than a scholarly article could possibly hope to express. And as I recall Cassander was also disliked by his own siblings.He was no Alexander - in fact he was not even an Argead. But was he worse than the 'so-called' friends of Alexander? Before Alexander's death absolutely, after, I'm not so sure But he was follish enough to be a tool for the others and his undying fame is not the kind one wishes to acquire...Regards,Tre

[kenney]

Alexander HailRespect to your points and I take on board,,, As I said the assassination is indeed my own opinion.My reasoning for Cassander doing the deed he fell into the three circumstantial brackets to warrant suspicion.Motive, Form and opportunity,, the trip he made across Asia to see Alexander,, was out of Character and why the visit,, Some argue he went to argue Antipaters case, However I feel it a more selfish motive.Tre stated Antipater was bypassing Cassander so there cant have been love lost there,, Tre if as you say Antipater was going to leave Cassander out of power how did he manage to get power.Im sorry for my references calling Cassander a little phsycho but Ive heard from fellow Porthonians and they gave me that impresion also that he really was a nasty piece of work.Regards Tre for your imput as my knowledge of cassander is limited,,, Only to say his visit and circumstances are enough to convince me that he did see our guy off.Kenny

[abm]

Hi Tre,Cassander did campaign with Alexander: he was there at the crossing of the Hellespont, as is attested by Diodorus. Afterwards we don't know anything about him until the anecdote of Alexander bouncing his head off a wall. W.L. Adams has argued, however, that he stayed with Alexander for a long time.The fact that Antipatros did not appoint Cassander regent might speak most of all about Antipatros' concern for the well-being of the empire, by not giving the impression he wanted to start his own dynasty (althouhgh he did not really succeed, since many scholars think he did aim at just that). He certainly did trust his son, since he appointed him chiliarch of Antigonos at Triparadeisos and just before his death again made him chiliarch, this time of Polyperchon."And as I recall Cassander was also disliked by his own siblings." I would really like to know on what basis you say this, since it is absolutely unknown to me."a lousy father and role model", this is not really sound reasoning, i think, since many great fathers have bad children.I don't know about your standards, but i would not wish to acquire the fame of any of the men involved in Alexander history, not even that of Alexander himself or of Aristotle. Alexander certainly was great in many fields but he was also very violent, and i would not want the same amount of blood on my hands as he had (actually i don't want any blood on my hands at all, to be fully clear). As for Aristotle, i don't like his view on barbarbians, which we would nowadays label extremely racist.One more thing about the demise of the Argead family: one should stress the their responsibility. Had Olympias and Eurydike fought united for their cause, the royal house certainly did stand a chance.regards,
abm

[abm]

as i said above he got power when Eurydike appointed him regent and by succesfull war against Polyperchon and Olympias.
In my opinion, this also proves his ability as a general. Moreover, he was one of the few Successors who died in his bed and not on the battlefield or in captivity. He can not have been as lousy as Tre would have it, none of the Successors was. Many of them were great generals and had a lousy one been involved he would have been eliminated fairly quickly.

[xxx]

Cassander...W.L. Adams has argued, however, that he stayed with Alexander for a long time.Not likely. The reason for Cassander's presence with the King toward the end of his life is pretty clear in the histories - he was pleading his father's case. His lack of mention in the histories would point to him not being with the King.The fact that Antipatros did not appoint Cassander regent might speak most of all about Antipatros' concern for the well-being of the empire, by not giving the impression he wanted to start his own dynasty The only logical reason he would pass up giving it to his own son would be that he knew what Cassander intended. Unfortunately he didn't bank on the dishonor of Polyperchon. When I speak of good men, I refer to honor, not generalship. Lack of honor made them all turn on each other."And as I recall Cassander was also disliked by his own siblings." I would really like to know on what basis you say this, since it is absolutely unknown to me.I believe Green refers to it in his bio on Alexander, but it could be Fox."a lousy father and role model", this is not really sound reasoning, i think, since many great fathers have bad children.Considering what his two sons did and their own demise, I feel pretty comfortable with the comment. I don't know about your standards, Mine are rather high, I must admit :-)One more thing about the demise of the Argead family: one should stress the their responsibility. Had Olympias and Eurydike fought united for their cause, the royal house certainly did stand a chance.Macedonians who have potential heirs directly attached to them do not 'work together.' Eurydike would have hated Alexander - he killed her father and his general had her mother killed. Why in the world when she felt she should be heir being Argead on both sides (I should stress her mother was a trained warrior and no doubt she was too)and married to an Argead male (no matter how disfunctional) would she help the mother of the man who killed her father, when Olympias had every intention of putting her grandson on the throne. Not gonna happen.It is a wicked web they all weaved and in the end the empire was lost.

[xxx]

I have said on this Forum several times, I am not much of a fan of the Diadochi. As we say from where I come from "It be's that way sometimes." I see nothing at all remarkable or great about Cassander.

[kenny]

Tre I fgeel you have more knowledge and understanding of Cassander and through all your posts, you were always inteiigent and fair with youir posts, So I yield to your opinion of the guy.Alexander states that the occasion Alexander smacked Cassanders head on the wall,, I really see no reason why it would be fiction .A;lexander as you say Alexander was a violent man,, Indeed he was yet at the same time the wporld was a violent place so Alexander was a man of his time,,, But as well as been violent he regulaly showed great Magnamity,,, Also is todays world any less violent or has society learned and moved on I would argue definately not.Kenny