What is known about the mass wedding at Susa?

[marcus]

Eumenes' bones were returned to his "mother, wife and Children in Cappadocia". If a Macedonian wife 'couldn't' have been settled in Cappadocia after 322, how come his mother could have been?

I do not dispute that there remains doubt over the exact identity of the wife who received the bones. However, the presence of Eumenes' mother doesn't present any difficulty for it having been Artonis. Eumenes' mother had most probably been living in Cardia, which was much closer to Eumenes' sphere of influence than Macedonia. Furthermore she might well have been called out to look after and educate his new wife even earlier than the invasion of Cappadocia.

By late 322BC hostilities between Antipater and Perdiccas were more or less out in the open, so it is dubious whether Antipater would have allowed Eumenes to remove potential hostages from Macedonia. I also have a slight problem with the idea that a wife that Eumenes had left behind in Macedonia a dozen years earlier would be called out to Cappadocia and immediately become the mother of more than one new child. It is the fact that the wife in question was the mother of Eumenes' young children that particularly makes her look like Artonis. Also a Persian bride would have been in special need of help from Eumenes' mother.

Best wishes,

Andrew

You could well be right, Andrew, and your argument is strong. There does remain doubt, of course, simply because the wife is not mentioned. Of course, bearing in mind where Cardia was, Eumenes could have left wife number 1 there, with his mother, when they went over the Hellespont ... a natural place to leave her, in his home area and in the middle of his family.

Quite possible it was Artonis, of course, as your argument suggests - especially the "young children" aspect. It's certainly a possibility that I hadn't considered before.

ATB

[marcus]

I’m not so certain that previous marriages were a barrier. I’d wonder how many of those on Marcus’ list were actually “eligible bachelors” at the time of their political Persian marriages.

I have no doubt that previous marriages would not have been considered. It might not have been normal, or even appropriate, for men other than the king to marry more than one woman previously; but once the empire was so huge, and with the amount of medising that went on (whether or not it was approved of), the high-flying Macedonians could well have taken a different view of things. If they were to be the lords and masters of the new empire, they must have seen the wisdom of forging closer ties with the Persian nobility. I doubt if they would have cast their Persian wives aside while Alexander lived ...

As to Antigonus, at the time – depending on the accuracy of sources – the bloke was somewhere around sixty (58 possibly?). Not sure – no Heckel at the office.

If I recall correctly (I'm in an Internet cafe and have no books with me), Heckel suggests Antigonus to have been born around 380, or in the 370s, anyway.

Did Polyperchon get a Persian bride?

We don't know - he isn't mentioned.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I’m not so certain that previous marriages were a barrier. I’d wonder how many of those on Marcus’ list were actually “eligible bachelors” at the time of their political Persian marriages.

I have no doubt that previous marriages would not have been considered. It might not have been normal, or even appropriate, for men other than the king to marry more than one woman previously; but once the empire was so huge, and with the amount of medising that went on (whether or not it was approved of), the high-flying Macedonians could well have taken a different view of things.

Except that it was Alexander himself who arranged the Susa marriages. So if it wasn't considered normal or appropriate for any Macedonian other than the king to practice polygamy then it would have been Alexander's decision to allow a royal prerogative to given to his men. I have difficulty convincing myself that he would have done so. Plus, it seems to me that after Alexander's death none of the Macedonians were polygamous. I could be wrong as I'm not overly knowledgeable of the period (and I know I'll be corrected if that's that case). But if any of the Successors were polygamous yet also claimed some kind of kingship then it still doesn't disprove my point.

Anyway, you'd think they would be - polygamous that is - if Alexander had already given them "permission" via the Susa marriages. Why bother to divorce one woman to marry another if you can hold on to the wealth and political status acquired through multiple marriages?

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Plus, it seems to me that after Alexander's death none of the Macedonians were polygamous.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Hi Andrew,

From my post previous to yours - the one which you just answered.

But if any of the Successors were polygamous yet also
claimed some kind of kingship then it still doesn't disprove my point.

I knew King Ptolemy had more than one wife, btw, and I also know the site from
which you quoted, but I didn't realize Ptolemy's marriages were polygamous. I thought
he divorced one before marrying another, but, as I said, I'm not that knowledgeable
about the period (even though I'm rather fond of Ptolemy).

So ... what about the rest of them - all the high ranking Macedonians who might have
been included in the Susa marriages but never claimed any kind of kingship after
Alexander's death. Any polygamy there? 'Cause if it can be proved there was then I'll
admit that Eumenes could have left a wife behind in Macedonia.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

The evidence is fragmented and I'm not particularly expert on this matter either. Athenaeus says Ptolemy married Thais after Alexander's death and he married Eurydice in about 321BC and Berenice by about 316BC. Yet he had perhaps 6 children by Eurydice and I don't know of any specific statement that he divorced her (or any other wife). Either she had several twins or there was polygamy. We don't know what happened to Artacama either - she is simply not heard of again. Furthermore it was planned that he should marry Cleopatra in 308BC, roughly the time that Berenice gave birth to Philadelphus, so he certainly intended to be a polygamist.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

So ... what about the rest of them - all the high ranking Macedonians who might have been included in the Susa marriages but never claimed any kind of kingship after Alexander's death. Any polygamy there? 'Cause if it can be proved there was then I'll admit that Eumenes could have left a wife behind in Macedonia.

Well Ptolemy wasn't a king (just a satrap or governor or viceroy) until 305BC after he had already been polygamous, so he sort of breaks your rule. I think we already have enough evidence to suggest that Eumenes' wife in Cappadocia was very probably Artonis. Certainty is too ambitious when the evidence is so limited. I think therefore that an earlier wife of Eumenes in Macedonia is also a poor theory as an alternative to Artonis, since it is unsupported by any evidence, but we cannot say that it is impossible.

Cordially,

Andrew

[marcus]

I think we already have enough evidence to suggest that Eumenes' wife in Cappadocia was very probably Artonis. Certainty is too ambitious when the evidence is so limited. I think therefore that an earlier wife of Eumenes in Macedonia is also a poor theory as an alternative to Artonis, since it is unsupported by any evidence, but we cannot say that it is impossible.

I'd happily go along with that, Andrew. We could argue semantics about whether "probably" is too strong, or just right ... yadda yadda ... but overall yup!

How about: "We cannot be sure whether the wife referred to is Artaconis or a wife from a marriage prior to the expedition. It seems more likely that it is Artaconis, as there is no evidence of a previous wife, and it would be strange that such a wife would suddenly find herself in Cappadocia, anyway. Artaconis is the only wife we know of, and the mention of small children makes it more likely to be her than some other woman, as any children of whose (by Eumenes) would have to have been teenagers by 322."

(It occurred to me that, another argument for it possibly being an earlier wife might be that she accompanied the army as a camp follower; but then I remembered that Alexander expressly disallowed camp followers in the early part of the expedition. So if anyone tries to use that as an argument, we know we can discount it.)

So, there you are - from an initial statement that blindly follows what the books have told us all the time, it seems we might have found another Successor who didn't immediately drop his Persian wife as soon as Alexander was cold.

ATB

[Paralus]

So, there you are - from an initial statement that blindly follows what the books have told us all the time, it seems we might have found another Successor who didn't immediately drop his Persian wife as soon as Alexander was cold.

And who was the royal general to boot. Don't disregard the politics of the first Diadoch war. Eumenes was the defender of the Argaed House. He made great play of the fact. It is likely that keeping the wife "given" by Alexander was as important to his prospects as the "Alexander tent" and throne within which he conducted business with his senior staff.

Unfortunately though for Eumenes, he was always that "pesky Greek". The Macedonians had little liking for the Greek from Cardia - and made it plain.

[amyntoros]

I’m reactivating this thread because of something I recently read in Bosworth's The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda under the Successors (waves to Paralus). These are my first thoughts and I've already considered revising them somewhat, but for the time being I'll let them stand and see if anyone is up for debate. First, here's the relevant quote:

There had been some disturbance in the strategic province of Parthyaea, where the Persian noble Phratapherenes had governed throughout the latter years of Alexander. Confirmed in office at Babylon, he was replaced at Triparadeisus by a certain Philippus … … … It could be that Phrataphernes had allied himself to the Perdiccan faction (perhaps one of his daughters had been given to Alcetas or another senior member in Alexander’s great collective wedding at Susa). In that case he is likely to have been stripped of his satrapy when Perdiccas was assassinated, much as Perdiccas’ own father-in-law, Atropates, seems to have lost his dominion in north-west Media. At Babylon Atropates was allowed to coexist with Peithon, but he is notably absent from the record of the satrapal distribution at Triparadeisus. He was probably supplanted by Peithon, whose territories were consequently expanded to incorporate both sections of Media …

Although Bosworth is hypothesizing (reasonably) that one of Phrataphernes' daughters might have been given in marriage at Susa, his comment about Atropates is very interesting. The fact that at Babylon he was allowed to keep his satrapy but lost it after the death of Perdiccas does seem to suggest a family alliance of sorts. The question is; would such an alliance have remained in effect if Perdiccas renounced his bride upon the death of Alexander? Would not Atropates have been extremely offended? Of course, if it did happen and he WAS offended he wouldn't have been in much of a position to do anything about it. But then why the apparent connection to Perdiccas which continued after Alexander’s death?

The above can be subjected to much debate, but it occurs to me that it makes no sense politically for the majority of the grooms at Susa to renounce their Persian brides. I think that initially – and from the Macedonian point of view – the marriages would have increased the status of the Persian families involved (those that were not royalty, that is). The death of Alexander brought about much confusion and instability; however, each husband would have known that they could count on the loyalty and support of their in-laws, this being both the Greek and Persian way. With the future of the empire unknown, would any of them have thrown this away just because they didn't want a Persian wife?

We (or at least I) have a tendency to consider only the major players when we discuss the marriages at Susa, but is that not because they're the ones who survived long enough to carve out a more prominent place in the history books? There were ninety-two brides designated by Alexander, meaning that ninety-two Macedonians of rank and/or a personal relationship with Alexander now had links via marriage to the Persian nobility. Surely they would have realized the importance of this upon the death of Alexander, at least whilst they remained – and fought – in Asia? No matter how much we are told that during Alexander's lifetime the Macedonians were opposed to fighting alongside Persians, the fact remains that they constituted a large percentage of the Diodachi forces - Persian nobles and (former?) satraps allied themselves and their troops right, left and center. Wouldn't a son-in-law or brother-in-law amongst the Macedonians be the first and most likely recipient of Persian "favor" in this respect? So I'll ask again - if any high-ranking Macedonian had a connection via marriage to a similarly high-ranking Persian, would he have thrown that away when still in Persia?

I must also ask, however - if the marriages remained in effect, why is there no evidence? I think I may be possible that many of the grooms did not survive long enough for their marriages and progeny to have any relevance to historical events. So many names become prominent after the death of Alexander only to disappear again, often because of death in battle.

Even amongst the major players there's another who did not immediately repudiate his wife –he seems only to have ended the marriage in favor of a more politically important family alliance. That would be Craterus, who, according to Memnon's History of Heracleia (4.4), gave his Persian wife to Dionysius when he "turned to Phila the daughter of Antipater."

Memnon: History of Heracleia [4.4] The greatest good fortune came to him from his second marriage. He married Amastris, the daughter of Oxathres; this Oxathres was the brother of Dareius, whose daughter Stateira Alexander took as his wife after killing her father. So the two women were cousins, and also they had been brought up together, which gave them a special affection for each other. When he married Stateira, Alexander gave this Amastris to Craterus, one of his closest friends. After Alexander departed from this world, Craterus turned to Phila the daughter of Antipater, and with the agreement of her former husband Amastris went to live with Dionysius.

Yes, it is a repudiation of his Persian wife, but the evidence does not point to Craterus casting her aside for no good reason after Alexander died. Heckel in his Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great places the event at the time that Antipater was summoning reinforcements to help him in the Lamian War. Heckel notes that "Antipater's appeal (to Craterus) included, in all probability, an offer of marriage to his eldest daughter Phila, widow of the satrap Balacrus. Craterus probably found her residing in Taurus in 324 and now escorted her to Macedon." In the footnotes (#260) Heckel also tells us that:

It was at this time that Craterus offered Amastris to Dionysius of Heraclea Pontica. The choice of a new husband must have been linked with Dionysius’ability to help secure the crossing of the Hellespont, which was still threatened by the Athenian fleet. By the time Craterus reached the Hellespont, White Cleitus had already won control of the sea, but in the early stages this was far from predictable.

So here we see the importance of Amastris as a wife. As soon as it suited Craterus he ended the marriage in favor of gaining one of the most important Macedonians as a father-in-law, yet a marriage to Amastris was obviously also of great value in that it secured the loyalty and alliance of Dionyius.

To sum up; despite the surfeit of "probably" and "possibly" in my argument above, it still seems to me that the marriages at Susa would have been too beneficial or useful for the Macedonian men to abandon their wives without just cause. I.e., just because we hear no more about them it does not mean that the marriages ended abruptly as soon as Alexander was no more.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

The issue of Craterus is interesting but, really, supposition. In truth, we know not the reason he sat pat in Cyinda whilst Antipater was bottled up. Most likely weighing his options as well as any difficulties involved in a crossing of the Hellespont. Diodorus is quite lucid in the account he gives where (18.12. 1-2) he describes Antipater, on hearing of the distribution of satrapies, sending to “Craterus in Cilicia, asking him to come to his aid as soon as possible”. Directly following on from this Diodorus says “he also sent to [Philotas] Lennoatus who had received Hellespontine Phrygia as his satrapy, also asking him likewise for aid and promising to give him one of his daughters in marriage.” There is no mention of an offer of marriage to Craterus. There is though to Leonnatus. Given that Diodorus has confused Philotas with Leonnatus, perhaps he has confused the marriage offer? Leonnatus, though, is the immediate hope due to proximity. The marriage alliance (with Craterus) seems better placed in context of their “settlement” of European affairs and war with Perdiccas.

As far as Craterus being unable to cross the Hellespont, Leonnatus, one will recall, had no issues in making his way to death in Macedonia via the Hellespont. Again, Craterus seemed to have a shorter horizon than the others in terms of ambition and he may have been genuinely stumped as to where his loyalties lie. Eventually he decided they were with the European regent.

I don't think that anyone asserts that the Macedonians repudiated their marriages immediately upon Alexander's death. I don't think there's too much doubt that they did so eventually though. These women – and their families – were still of some use but it is well to remember that these people were, now that Alexander was gone, a lower class – in every respect. It can be all too easy to overstate their importance in the scheme of things (just as to understate it).

The Persians well knew the sort of individuals they were dealing with: these blokes were as – if not more – ruthless than the departed invader. The subsequent events would demonstrate only too well just what lengths they would go to. The subject peoples – Iranians included – largely had little say in how they were used and abused. The demonstration of Peithon’s slaughter of the Greeks will not have been lost on them nor would Perdiccas’ “lustration” of the army. This is what they would visit upon their “own” to secure power.

The points about Perdiccas’ in-laws have merit. Even so, by the time the “Babylonian settlement” had been bashed out and the “mutineers” murdered, Perdiccas was well into negotiating his next marriage: that to Antipater’s daughter Nicaea. This will have been to mollify Antipater and cement relations between the two. It wasn’t terribly much later that he decided – as the overreaching Leonnatus had before him – that Alexander’s sister, Cleopatra, was the far better rung on the political ladder of empire.

The real power – at this time – resided with Macedonians. The marriages of politico-military import were those to Macedonians. The Iranian marriages were “dynastic” links to an elite no longer in positions of real power. They were to atrophy further in the coming years: a bit like the Neanderthal branch of humanity; they led in a different direction.

The situation with Atropates is involved. Briant, if I recall, discusses his situation and the area of Media that he presided over. The reasons involve more than a relationship with Perdiccas. Atropates was of the Median aristocracy and the area of Media which Alexander confirmed him in was one of military/political importance. It was here that Median insurrection was most likely. He was one of Alexander’s better appointments. On the king’s return from India and survival of the Makran, Atropates presented him with the news that he’d crushed a Median native uprising under an aristocratic pretender (whose name eludes me) who’d had the temerity to adopt the “upright tiara”. I suspect he was confirmed in his position in the “Babylonian Settlement” due to the fact of proven loyalty; it was easier (in the negotiations) to leave him there given he was Perdiccas’ father in law and that, proven as he was to the royal authority, he might serve as a check on the marshal Peithon to his south.

[agesilaos]

We need not assume the other 92 became fatalities; it would boil down to whom Arrian's source thought worthy of recording. Alexander of course, dead at time of writing, Hephaistion ditto, Eumenes same as, Perdikkas, getting a bit of a theme here, Krateros aha and Nearchos possibly deceased, Ptolemy the source and Seleukos his ally; this would be reason enough for Antigonos' abscence but the lack of reference to any marriage in the pro-Antigonid Hieronymos militates against it, for an Asian based diadoch such a connection would surely have proved useful

[amyntoros]

I don't think that anyone asserts that the Macedonians repudiated their marriages immediately upon Alexander's death. I don't think there's too much doubt that they did so eventually though. These women – and their families – were still of some use but it is well to remember that these people were, now that Alexander was gone, a lower class – in every respect. It can be all too easy to overstate their importance in the scheme of things (just as to understate it).

The Persians well knew the sort of individuals they were dealing with: these blokes were as – if not more – ruthless than the departed invader. The subsequent events would demonstrate only too well just what lengths they would go to. The subject peoples – Iranians included – largely had little say in how they were used and abused. The demonstration of Peithon's slaughter of the Greeks will not have been lost on them nor would Perdiccas' "lustration" of the army. This is what they would visit upon their "own" to secure power.

Well, I'm not yet committed to any conclusion – rather I'm trying to understand whether the marriages might have continued and worked within the context of the times. And I'm trying to the best of my ability to neither understate nor or overstate the importance – more an issue of throwing out hooks (in the form of a questions) and seeing what I may catch!

However, I'm not entirely happy assigning a blanket attitude to all the Macedonians and therefore all the marriages. I recently read that there were either 20+ or 30+ major players in the immediate conflicts after Alexander's death. (And I am thoroughly irritated with myself for not recalling either the exact number or the source.) This leaves around 60 other marriages of Persian women to men whom, I’m sure, also had ambitions of their own. One question I ask is - even though they considered themselves superior to the Persians, would they not have felt it advisable to keep both their wives and the loyalty of their Persian in-laws whilst all hell was breaking loose around them? And once things were relatively stable (some good few years later) might not those who survived have found no good reason to repudiate their wives at that point?

The real power – at this time – resided with Macedonians. The marriages of politico-military import were those to Macedonians. The Iranian marriages were “dynastic” links to an elite no longer in positions of real power. They were to atrophy further in the coming years: a bit like the Neanderthal branch of humanity; they led in a different direction.

Yes but not every groom was in a position to consider or be considered for a politico-military important marriage within the Macedonian elite. We know of the back and forth marriage offers and negotiations amongst this elite, but once the Macedonian women were out of play who was left of sufficient importance for the other grooms to fight over? This could mean, surely, that the dynastic links to the Persian elite still had some desirability? What would have been of greater value to those other 70-80+ men still living and fighting in Persia – a marriage to a prominent female of the Persian dynasty or a marriage into the not-so-high-elite family of someone fighting alongside you? Or opposite you? Or in Macedonia itself?

You also said above that 'The subject peoples – Iranians included – largely had little say in how they were used and abused.' I do see your point but I have further thoughts on this. For instance, whilst the Macedonians were fighting each other for hierarchal position they still had to administer the territories which they had been assigned (or, for the lesser characters, protect their own situation in Asia). Even though there were always a few Macedonians left in charge, the majority of the fighting force was needed elsewhere. Therefore wouldn't the cooperation of the Persians have been of SOME importance to them? And wouldn't relationships to various Persians by marriage have guaranteed that cooperation? Seleucus was one who certainly thought so. Even though his feelings towards the Persians are recorded in the early histories (of Alexander) because they supposedly contrast with most of the Macedonians, I do wonder if we learn of this only because he survived long enough and was successful enough to establish his own empire. Can we categorically state that none of the other ninety or so grooms had a similar attitude towards the Persians? I think I said this in an earlier post, but it bears repeating: Could it not be that we don’t hear about them in this respect simply because they either didn't survive or were not successful enough to leave their mark in the histories?

Repeating a quote:

I don't think that anyone asserts that the Macedonians repudiated their marriages immediately upon Alexander's death. I don't think there's too much doubt that they did so eventually though.

Well, Brunt's footnote to the marriages (in the Loeb edition of Arrian), after mentioning Apame, says only that 'No other marriage is known to have lasted; some certainly did not.' I have, however, seen the assumption elsewhere that because none of the marriages is known (i.e., on record) to have lasted then there must have been a mass repudiation that compares with the mass marriages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a direct reference in any of the sources to this effect, yet many of our modern authors are insistent.

Peter Green says: ‘Nor did the marriages themselves have the effect which Alexander hoped to achieve. They had been made willy-nilly, at the king's express command, and almost all of them were repudiated soon after his death.' Hamilton tells us that 'most them made haste to rid themselves of their Persian wives at his death.' Although Tarn does point out that 'many of the bridegrooms were soon to die' he also says that 'many others repudiated their Asiatic wives after Alexander’s death.' Even Maxwell O'Brien says 'it seems that all of them, with the exception of Seleucus, discarded their Asiatic wives.' (O'Brien at least qualifies his statement!)

Although Bosworth rightly notes that 'apart from Seleucus' wife, Apame, none of the Persian ladies is recorded playing any role in the age of the Successors', a little earlier he states without reservation that 'the unions did not last.' My opinion here is that unless we should EXPECT to hear about the Persian women during the age of the Successors then the silence in the sources does not support a categorical statement that the unions did not last. Unless a Persian woman was exceptional or extremely prominent - along with her Macedonian husband - it's unlikely that any of the ancient authors would have found her worthy of record. For instance, should Seleucus have been killed before securing his kingdom I truly doubt that there would have been any further record of Apame. It's because of her husband’s achievements that she was considered worthy of mention – she was the mother of Antiochus and Seleucus founded three cities in her name. Now I agree that the wives of Antigonus (if he was indeed given one), Lysimachus, Peucestas, Ptolemy, etc. would very likely have found their way into the histories had the marriages survived. However, I don't believe the historians had any interest at all in the wives of Macedonians 20 through 92 (or 10 through 22 – pick a spread). It seems that even the marriages themselves weren't all that worthy of note except for the spectacle involved. We don't even know the names of over eighty of the Macedonians so why should we expect to hear about their wives during the age of the Successors? The women are hardly likely to have achieved more lasting fame than their husbands. And, as we all know well, ancient historians showed little interest in Persian men let alone Persian women. After Alexander Persian men feature only when they were involved in a battle or lost their satrapy, etc. Not one ancient source thought it even worthy of recording what happened to Darius' young son, Ochus. There's even less interest in the Persians after the death of Alexander than there was before!

My argument does not apply only to Bosworth's statement, of course. I think it is likely that all others who state that the marriages didn't last are applying the same criteria, but Bosworths wording best afforded me the opportunity to make the above response.

(I was also going to add a comment (or three ) about the social and cultural aspects of the dowries but it would probably distract at this point.)

Best regards,

[Paralus]

However, I don't believe the historians had any interest at all in the wives of Macedonians 20 through 92 (or 10 through 22 – pick a spread). It seems that even the marriages themselves weren't all that worthy of note except for the spectacle involved. We don't even know the names of over eighty of the Macedonians so why should we expect to hear about their wives during the age of the Successors? The women are hardly likely to have achieved more lasting fame than their husbands. And, as we all know well, ancient historians showed little interest in Persian men let alone Persian women. After Alexander Persian men feature only when they were involved in a battle or lost their satrapy, etc. Not one ancient source thought it even worthy of recording what happened to Darius' young son, Ochus. There's even less interest in the Persians after the death of Alexander than there was before!

Short and pithy as I'm off to do a safety inspection at a warehouse I'm to supply forkies to.

You have, in large part, answered your own enquiry. The ancient historians of the period showed an interest in that which drove the narrative; which affected the story and events. The conquered and usurped Persian elite do not, for the great part, fit those criteria. Women even less so.

Alexander married Roxanne in a wholly political marriage aimed at settling insurrection he had singularly failed to bring to heel via other means, largely military and acts of terror. The Susa marriages were a similar gambit writ large. This was no concord of man: this was marrying former ruling elites into the new Macedonian “overlordship” of empire so as he could, once again, turn his back and get on with the fun of war, battle, killing and conquering. Whatever other “long term” aims one might decide to accord to this display, that was its immediate objective.

Key to what followed – and modern historians’ views on this – is the complete and utter (to the last word) repudiation of Alexander’s future “plans”. Again, it matters not whether the minutiae are historically accurate, the Macedonians – without reservation and with some gusto – dismissed the entire programme of further aggrandisement and conquest, Philip’s and Hephaestion’s tombs and just about anything else the now dead and departed king had planned for his long suffering marshals and, even more so, troops.

There is a sense of “thank God!” about it all. I have little doubt that the enforced marriages suffered a similar fate as well. If not immediately then soon after.

[amyntoros]

You have, in large part, answered your own enquiry. The ancient historians of the period showed an interest in that which drove the narrative; which affected the story and events. The conquered and usurped Persian elite do not, for the great part, fit those criteria. Women even less so.

Yes, but you're supporting my argument here. Continuing marriages between Macedonians and Persians would NOT drive the narrative so therefore would not be reported. As I said before, silence on this subject does not mean that it didn't happen.

Alexander married Roxanne in a wholly political marriage aimed at settling insurrection he had singularly failed to bring to heel via other means, largely military and acts of terror. The Susa marriages were a similar gambit writ large. This was no concord of man: this was marrying former ruling elites into the new Macedonian “overlordship” of empire so as he could, once again, turn his back and get on with the fun of war, battle, killing and conquering. Whatever other “long term” aims one might decide to accord to this display, that was its immediate objective.

Key to what followed – and modern historians’ views on this – is the complete and utter (to the last word) repudiation of Alexander’s future “plans”. Again, it matters not whether the minutiae are historically accurate, the Macedonians – without reservation and with some gusto – dismissed the entire programme of further aggrandisement and conquest, Philip’s and Hephaestion’s tombs and just about anything else the now dead and departed king had planned for his long suffering marshals and, even more so, troops.

There is a sense of “thank God!” about it all. I have little doubt that the enforced marriages suffered a similar fate as well. If not immediately then soon after.

I certainly acknowledge the repudiation of Alexander's future plans – plans which involved great expense - and Perdiccas certainly presented them with a view to having them rejected outright by the Macedonian assembly. More money spent on Alexander's plans meant less to divide between the elite and to pay/reward the army! This wouldn't have applied to the marriages, however. In fact repudiation of the marriages would have been at financial cost to the Macedonians – the dowries would have to be returned to the women.

I think that you made a key statement above – modern historians' views on this - even though it wasn't strictly intended to refer to the marriages. As far as the sources are concerned, Diodorus alone says that Alexander prevailed upon his Friends to take wives:

Diodorus 17.107.6 The king gave Caranus a magnificent funeral and then proceeded to Susa, where he married Stateira, the elder daughter of Dareius, and gave her younger sister Drypetis as wife to Hephaestion. He prevailed upon the most prominent of his Friends to take wives also, and gave them in marriage the noblest Persian ladies.

Arrian says (of the Macedonians, in general):

Arrian 7.6.2…in fact they were greatly pained to see Alexander wearing the Median dress, while the marriages celebrated in the Persian style did not correspond to the desires of most of them, including even some of the bridegrooms, despite the great honor of being raised to equality with the king.

Note that he says some of the bridegrooms, plus there's also room for a different interpretation regarding the marriages – that the fact that they were celebrated "in Persian style" was the chief reason for the objections. Earlier in Arrian we find a different approach – a general approval of the weddings.

Arrian 7.4.7-8 (Loeb Translation) …and kissed them, the king setting the example, for all the weddings took place together. None of Alexander's actions was thought to show more affability and comradeship.

Arrian 7.4.7-8 (Penguin translation) The king, who was married just as the others were, and in the same place, was the first to perform the ceremony – Alexander was always capable of putting himself on a footing of equality and comradeship with his subordinates, and everyone felt that this act of his was the best proof of his ability to do so.

I just don't see evidence in the sources to support this general assumption of modern historians (see my earlier post) that the marriages were repudiated en masse. I've never denied that they were arranged by Alexander for political reasons, and although the face of the empire changed almost immediately upon his death I still think that most of the grooms would not have found sufficient reason to annul these marriages. It isn't as if they would have had a negative impact on an individual's future or the future of the Macedonians in general. They simply don't compare with emptying the coffers to pay for Alexander's last plans or venturing into new and strange territory to fight still more battles. They're just marriages. I argued in my last post as to why I think they might still have been viewed as advantageous to most of the lesser Macedonian characters involved. You play the cards that you are dealt and although a wedding to a Persian noble may not be the best card in the deck it certainly seems worth holding on to, in my opinion.

Best regards,

_________________
Amyntoros

P.S. Is this the right time for me to proffer my opinion that the "families" of the Silver Shields at Gabiene were most likely their Persian wives and children?