Re: Cassander as regent

abm · Post by **abm** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:18 pm

Hi Tre,
'The behavior of pack animals is useful in such a study. Once a competent heir comes of age (GÇª)'
very interesting, but (1) no two events in history happen under the exact same circumstances, (2) humans and animals are not completely the same, and (3) this is only one aspect of Alexander's relationship with his father, much of which eludes us.
'You'd be wrong on that BTW. There are very good reasons for what Cassander did, I just don't have to admire him for it.'
That's not what I mean. I never admire a murderer, thus I don't admire Cassander either. However, this is an ethical judgment and when assessing Cassander's career ethical judgments should not influence our historical interpretation of events. It might also be interesting to note that such scholars as E.D. Carney and W.L. Adams judge CassanderGÇÖs political career rather positive and now IGÇÖm not assuming that what they say is true because they are well-known scholars, but they evidently know a lot more about Cassander than you and I do.
'Alexander was for the most part, unfailingly logical. It was one of the reasons he was so successful.'
A lot can be said about this; I'll limit myself to what is relevant to the present discussion. This is no argument against Cassander's moves and as I said we simply don't know enough about Alexander history to judge the logic of those.
'But not on campaign in Asia'
After crossing the Hellespont they were in Asia, a fact of which you undoubtedly are well aware, thus I don't see your point here.
'Cassander had designs on marrying into the Argead house and the only way to accomplish that was the death of Olympias.'
If you mean that Cassander intended to marry an Argead from even before Alexander died, your view is evidently based on hindsight. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any such assumption.
'His son was a man who did not know his place, and a man like that strikes at the very heart of tradition.'
I do not see any support for this in the sources. There is however strong evidence that he was trying attach himself to the Argead tradition (coinage, marrying Thessalonike etc.)
'you don't know my views on Antipater, but the above should give you a point of reference'.
So you seem to approve Antipater? If, in you view, the behaviour of Cassander's sons proves that Cassander was a lousy father and role model, why then does Cassander's behaviour not prove that Antipater was a lousy fat

abm · Post by **abm** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:19 pm

father and role model. The fact that Cassander succeeded to his father, might also say something about their relationship. Antipater was born ca. 398 and Cassander ca. 350. If Cassander succeeded to his father because he was the eldest son, Antipater would have been about 50 when got his first child (all the known daughters are probably younger than Cassander), which would be very late. Thus maybe Cassander was not his eldest son, but his most favoured one. On the other hand, it is of course possible that Antipater had other daughters, who were elder than Cassander, but about whom we know nothing because they were already married before AlexanderGÇÖs death and thus unmentioned in the sources.'No, that's a great leap.'I don't see why, but maybe that's because of my lack of practical knowledge of killing.
GÇÿIt is the killing of the mother that more proves the point.GÇÖ
According to Plutarch (Demetrius 3.4) GÇ£almost all the other lines [=other than the Antigonids] afford many examples of men who killed their own sons, and many who killed their mothers and wives (GÇª)GÇ¥. Moreover, this particular situation was rather exceptional because Cassander only had one wife. Consequently, the strong bond which children have with their mother in polygamous situations in royal families as a result of the rivalry for succession with the other wives and their children (cf. Alexander and Olympias), was absent here, a fact which of course does not constitute an excuse for the murder. Furthermore, CassanderGÇÖs sons were very young and inexperienced at time of the succession crisis. (Well, Kenny, maybe they were the prince Harry of Antiquity).
'It is interesting to point out that after the death of Cassander's first son from sickness, both of his other children were killed by men married to Cassander's sisters'
This had nothing to do with the fact that they were married to Cassander's sisters. Alexander was killed by Demetrius because Demetrius had found out that Alexander wanted to kill him. Antipater was killed by Lysimachus in unclear circumstances and there is nothing to suggest any role of Nikaia in the affair. Maybe Nikaia didnGÇÖt even play an important role in Lysimachus court any more after CassanderGÇÖs death, which might partially explain the strong position of Arsinoe. Moreover, Lysimachus even killed his own son.
'More a modern conception than actual truth. There were 'rules' even then.'
This was not my point. I never said there were no rule

abm · Post by **abm** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:20 pm

This was not my point. I never said there were no rules in antiquity, but that people who were blinded by their lust for power didn't see any rules and I don't know why this would be a modern conception, since it is very clear from the sources. Cf. also the Plutarch quote above'It is to me - when you said that, it suggested you didn't quite understand Argead politics within the clan. Cassander might never have come to power in the first place. This statement does not make sense. It wasnGÇÖt the Argeads fault this happened. It was AlexanderGÇÖs men - they certainly knew what CassanderGÇÖs intentions. 'Might well be, but that was because you didn't quite understand what I meant. I've made my point clear in the meantime and thus there is no more suggestion that I don't quite understand Argead politics within the clan. We are talking about the causes (which is not exactly the same as fault) for Argead demise and there are two: (1) there was no unity within the royal house and (2) partly because of the first reason the Diadochoi became extremely powerful and killed the remaining members of the dynasty.GÇÿCassander would never have made such a move without the tacit approval of the others.GÇÖIndeed, and IGÇÖve never denied this. cf. (2) in the previous paragraph and my very first post on the topic.GÇÿThey had been doing that for a very, very long time and there were still Argead KingsGÇªGÇÖcompare it to cancer: itGÇÖs deadly, but it can take a while before you die from it and you might even recover and survive it, but apparently the Argeads did not.GÇÿNo, I am making a comment on PhilaGÇÖs rather unpleasant life and of her first son by Craterus.GÇÖI didnGÇÖt say what you were doing, but that in doing whatever you did, you appeared to be avoiding reacting to my argument.GÇÿErr, he married her to Demetrios to save his own hide. Cassander would have to listen to her.GÇÖNo, Phila was married to Demetrius in order to consolidate the relationship between Antipater and Antigonos after Triparadeisos, Cassander had nothing to do with it. And he didnGÇÖt h+íve to listen to Phila at all, because DemetriosGÇÖ position was not that strong as to be able to threaten Cassander directly. The fact that Demetrios did send Phila, probably also shows that the situation was bad for Demetrios, because otherwise he could have sent one of his friends to negotiate. For the peace of 311, for instance, when the Antigonids were negotiating from a powerful position they felt no need to se

abm · Post by **abm** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:21 pm

For the peace of 311, for instance, when the Antigonids were negotiating from a powerful position they felt no need to send Phila.GÇÿIt is if you consider the possible why notsGÇÖand what exactly would you mean by this? It would help the discussion if said what you mean instead of just suggesting things.regards,abm

ruthaki · Post by **ruthaki** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:03 pm

Can you clarify when Demetrios sent Phila to see Cassandros and why? thanks. ruthaki

abm · Post by **abm** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:17 pm

Hi Ruth,After the battle of Ipsos (301) Kassandros' brother Pleistarchos ruled as a more or less independent dynast in Cilicia. In 298, I think (but i should check the date, i don't have my books here), Demetrios expelled him, after which Pleistarchos went to his brother to complain about Demetrios. The latter then sent Phila to defend him of Pleistarchos' accusations. (see Plutarch, Demetrius 32)regards,
abm

abm · Post by **abm** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:29 pm

As for reading on the Diadochoi, there is also a book on the internet, but i haven't read it yet, so I don't know whether it's any good.http://hometown.aol.co.uk/bobbbennett/

ruthaki · Post by **ruthaki** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:31 pm

Thanks Alexander, I just had to clarify if the meeting took place during the time which I am writing about (before Kassandros took control).
I appreciate your help. Thanks.

xxx · Post by **xxx** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:43 am

Hello Alexander:I think we might be boring the rest of the Forum on this. 'The behavior of pack animals is useful in such a study. Once a competent heir comes of age (?)'very interesting, but (1) no two events in history happen under the exact same circumstances, (2) humans and animals are not completely the same, and (3) this is only one aspect of Alexander's relationship with his father, much of which eludes us.Animals, in particular the higher animals and their societies, resemble us far more than the reverse. It allows one a view with little emotion and away from the characters. One is a given, but doesn?t really apply to what I?ve written. Some aspects of history short of interviews, will always elude us. But history is never truths, it?s not a science'You'd be wrong on that BTW. There are very good reasons for what Cassander did, I just don't have to admire him for it.'That's not what I mean. I never admire a murderer, thus I don't admire Cassander either. However, this is an ethical judgment and when assessing Cassander's career ethical judgments should not influence our historical interpretation of events. It might also be interesting to note that such scholars as E.D. Carney and W.L. Adams judge Cassander?s political career rather positive and now I?m not assuming that what they say is true because they are well-known scholars, but they evidently know a lot more about Cassander than you and I do.They read the same stuff, and unless they?ve channeled spirits, the only difference between us all is the interpretation and access to materials (I don?t work for a University obviously). I?ve read Carney quite a bit, and I don?t know that I?d say she?s positive. Compared to others she?s not quite as negative might be a nit more on the mark, but in her studies of Argead Women she naturally would be concentrated there. However, Cassander?s history and how it is represented both in ancient accounts and modern ones is hardly my work. I just don?t happen to disagree with the general consensus on the guy. What he is most famous for was his own choice and history judges (and history always judges) him for it. The only difference is can we transpose judgement enough that we can see perhaps something different than those that came before. Your comments on killing would be a similar point. You don?t admire killers or killing because our society judges that as wrong. In their time and society, this was a necessity, not a choice

xxx · Post by **xxx** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:50 am

If we had no jails, how would we deal with those who could kill us? This doesn't make it nice admittedly, but execution would be the only way. We've never been forced in our day to make that kind of decision. However a death like the one that befell Cleopatra was unnecessary.'But not on campaign in Asia'After crossing the Hellespont they were in Asia, a fact of which you undoubtedly are well aware, thus I don't see your point here.?Across Asia.? Wrong word.'Cassander had designs on marrying into the Argead house and the only way to accomplish that was the death of Olympias.'If you mean that Cassander intended to marry an Argead from even before Alexander died, your view is evidently based on hindsight. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any such assumption.Your assumption, not mine.'His son was a man who did not know his place, and a man like that strikes at the very heart of tradition.'I do not see any support for this in the sources. There is however strong evidence that he was trying attach himself to the Argead tradition (coinage, marrying Thessalonike etc.)When I speak of tradition I speak of the Argead Kingship. Cassander was not an Argead. He attempted to become one by marriage to justify his taking of more than the Regency, i.e. he did not know his place.'you don't know my views on Antipater, but the above should give you a point of reference'.So you seem to approve Antipater? If, in you view, the behaviour of Cassander's sons proves that Cassander was a lousy father and role model, why then does Cassander's behaviour not prove that Antipater was a lousy fatther and role model. Antipater chose the Argeads over his son, Cassander did the reverse. The fact that Cassander succeeded to his father, might also say something about their relationship. Antipater was born ca. 398 and Cassander ca. 350. If Cassander succeeded to his father because he was the eldest son, Antipater would have been about 50 when got his first child (all the known daughters are probably younger than Cassander), which would be very late. Thus maybe Cassander was not his eldest son, but his most favoured one. On the other hand, it is of course possible that Antipater had other daughters, who were elder than Cassander, but about whom we know nothing because they were already married before Alexander?s death and thus unmentioned in the sources.I believe Cassander to have been Alexander?s age. He was probably the

xxx · Post by **xxx** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:54 am

He was probably the eldest son from a new wife. It would be expected if he had no male heirs still living, he would remarry. In a warrior society, it was not unexpected that you might lose your first batch of son(s). Hard to say he was the favorite son however. Only Antipater would know that. However, he might have been the most useful being with his father and not with Alexander and less likely perhaps to question his father?s ambitions. ?It is the killing of the mother that more proves the point.?According to Plutarch (Demetrius 3.4) ?almost all the other lines [=other than the Antigonids] afford many examples of men who killed their own sons, and many who killed their mothers and wives (?)?. Moreover, this particular situation was rather exceptional because Cassander only had one wife. Consequently, the strong bond which children have with their mother in polygamous situations in royal families as a result of the rivalry for succession with the other wives and their children (cf. Alexander and Olympias), was absent here, a fact which of course does not constitute an excuse for the murder. While children and mothers in polygamous relationships would be rivals, it does not mean that children and mothers from monogamous relationships would have a lesser bond.Furthermore, Cassander?s sons were very young and inexperienced at time of the succession crisis. (Well, Kenny, maybe they were the prince Harry of Antiquity).Then perhaps the killing of the mother and then expecting to be welcomed by old Uncle Ly was not a good idea, eh? No one ever accused the British Royal Family of being brainy.'It is interesting to point out that after the death of Cassander's first son from sickness, both of his other children were killed by men married to Cassander's sisters'This had nothing to do with the fact that they were married to Cassander's sisters. Alexander was killed by Demetrius because Demetrius had found out that Alexander wanted to kill him. Or rather, Demetrius was ?invited to intercede? and wanted to kill Alexander and take the Kingship. I doubt Phila had no role in such a situation. This was not my point. I never said there were no rules in antiquity, but that people who were blinded by their lust for power didn't see any rules and I don't know why this would be a modern conception, since it is very clear from the sources. Cf. also the Plutarch quote abovePlutarch?s writings are peppered with judgements (often

xxx · Post by **xxx** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:57 am

(often contradictory ones depending on which piece you?re comparing to another) because that?s his aim, but no one is going to argue the behavior of a pack without an Alpha. Cassander was not alone in his ruthlessness, nor for that matter were the Antigonids the model of Plutarch?s view if proper regnal behavior. '?They had been doing that for a very, very long time and there were still Argead Kings??compare it to cancer: it?s deadly, but it can take a while before you die from it and you might even recover and survive it, but apparently the Argeads did not.As long as we realize Cassander was a ?introduced? malignant tumor that would not have happened at any other time. ?Err, he married her to Demetrios to save his own hide. Cassander would have to listen to her.?No, Phila was married to Demetrius in order to consolidate the relationship between Antipater and Antigonos after Triparadeisos, Cassander had nothing to do with it. This does not change the face of my argument. What it does mean is I didn?t have my books at the office. In effect, had not that marriage been made Cassander would have been a dead man and he knew that. Without Antigonus?s support against Polyperchon, Cassander would never have been King. He would be obliged to his sister for that bit of good fortune. It is not at all surprising however, that the peace with the Antigonids was not going to be long lasting. In Demetrios? position, why not use Phila? The obligation remained. That obligation did not remain after the death of Cassander. Apparently, like most car warranties, when ownership changes, so does the coverage.In another post you mentioned Diodorus? statements that Cassander attemped to marry Cleopatra. I would doubt that for many reasons. As to his ambitions going outside of Greece, again, one can?t quite make that judgement without knowing the man personally, but it is certainly not out of the question. Ones ambitions often do not mirrir ones capabilities. You might find it interesting to compare who is buried in Tomb III, historical accounts of the death of Alexander IV and what would have happened had the Prince died of natural causes, and comparing it to the parallels in the poisoning propaganda that followed the death of Alexander. That is if you really wanted to shake it up :-)Regards,Tre

xxx · Post by **xxx** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:59 am

Apparently something happens when I translate a Word document to the Forum...

abm · Post by **abm** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:52 pm

Hi Tre,GÇÿI think we might be boring the rest of the Forum on this.GÇÖYou might be right on that, but luckily noone is obliged to read this.GÇÿAnimals, in particular the higher animals and their societies, resemble us far more than the reverse. It allows one a view with little emotion and away from the characters. One is a given, but doesn?t really apply to what I?ve written. Some aspects of history short of interviews, will always elude us. But history is never truths, it?s not a scienceGÇÖI didnGÇÖt say that comparisons to animals are completely uninstructive, but man can make more complex political considerations and combined with the fact that every situation in human history is different, this makes that this comparison can only offer a very limited, though still interesting, contribution to our understanding of PhilipGÇÖs relationship with Alexander, and thus indeed will always elude us.GÇÿThey read the same stuffGÇÖAll scholars read the same stuff, but they disagree on a lot of things.GÇÿand unless they?ve channeled spirits, the only difference between us all is the interpretation and access to materialsGÇÖIndeed, and thatGÇÖs what makes it even more interesting that two of them have the same opinion, since they donGÇÖt have channeled spirits.GÇÿI?ve read Carney quite a bit, and I don?t know that I?d say she?s positive. Compared to others she?s not quite as negative might be a nit more on the mark, but in her studies of Argead Women she naturally would be concentrated there.GÇÖShe is explicitly positive on Cassander in her article GÇÿThe Curious Death of the Antipatrid DynastyGÇÖ, in Ancient Macedonia 6. She has written her dissertation on the Macedonian nobilty and this also an important aspect of her research.GÇÿI just don?t happen to disagree with the general consensus on the guy.GÇÖThis consensus is certainly not as general as you think, to say the least. Besides, there is consensus which is just as general that Antipater also aimed at establishing his one dynasty instead of the Argeads, as Cassander did. (Which might be interesting on what youGÇÖve said about Antipater).GÇÿWhat he is most famous for was his own choice and history judges (and history always judges) him for it.GÇÖThe judgement of history is interpretation and thus not quite objective.GÇÿThe only difference is can we transpose judgement enough that we can see perhaps something different than those that came before. Your comments on killing would be a similar point.

abm · Post by **abm** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:53 pm

You don?t admire killers or killing because our society judges that as wrong. In their time and society, this was a necessity, not a choice. If we had no jails, how would we deal with those who could kill us? This doesn't make it nice admittedly, but execution would be the only way.GÇÖI wouldnGÇÖt say that their view on killing was that different of ours. One can not say that killing was a necessity in Antiquity, unless maybe in a very early stage. The law-code of Drakon shows that even as early as the seventh century they had a fairly modern view on the matter (but no jails in the modern sense). The necessity certainly doesnGÇÖt apply to Cassander, because he could just as well have chosen for a GÇÿnormalGÇÖ life instead of striving for supreme power and than none of his murders had to be comitted and even in the position he actually had it was clearly not mere self-defence. This is, moreover, entirely in accordance with your view on Cassander, I think. Besides as I said that I donGÇÖt use my own ethical judgments in reconstructing the past. I donGÇÖt see how the jail and execution point applies here, since Cassander wasnGÇÖt executed for his murders.GÇÿAcross AsiaGÇÖsee my other post on this, since this can more or less be treated as separate point and the present post is becoming very long.GÇÿYour assumption, not mine.GÇÖWrong word here too: I meant Antipater, not Alexander, thus it should become: GÇÿIf you mean that Cassander intended to marry an Argead from even before Antipater died, your view is evidently based on hindsight. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any such assumption.GÇÖ This is I understand what you said about it: GÇÿNote that Antipater had not made a marriage for Cassander and he was well past marrying age. Cassander had designs on marrying into the Argead house and the only way to accomplish that was the death of Olympias. Antipater was a traditionalist GÇô that was not going to happen.GÇÖGÇÿWhen I speak of tradition I speak of the Argead Kingship. Cassander was not an Argead. He attempted to become one by marriage to justify his taking of more than the Regency, i.e. he did not know his place.GÇÖThat he didnGÇÖt know his place doesnGÇÖt mean he was against the tradition: he wanted to proceed in the Argead tradition. And maybe he had already seen that whatever he did, there were enough Macedonian nobles who wanted to seize the opportunity to kill the Argeads and take the throne and then thought that if a Macedonian noble should get the thro

pothos.org