What is known about the mass wedding at Susa?

[amyntoros]

PS. Oh what I’d give for a complete listing of the Persians named in the histories, along with their ranks/positions, family connections etc.

... I'm OK with listing what their position is when they are first encountered, or possibly what Alexander promotes them to ... (As it is, I'm sure you realise that I am literally making notes from Heckel's Who's Who, because he has, in fact, done all the work.)

It's going to take some time - just spent around 40 minutes on the 'A's ...

You are a wonderful, marvelous human being! Did you know that?

I would say that who they are when Alexander first encounters them and (possibly) their final position under Alexander would do it. That would give an indication of their importance in both hierarchies.

Simplified lists can be very valuable -- well, to me, anyway.

Best regards,

[marcus]

You are a wonderful, marvelous human being! Did you know that?

That's all I needed to read!

I would say that who they are when Alexander first encounters them and (possibly) their final position under Alexander would do it. That would give an indication of their importance in both hierarchies.

Won't necessarily get both ... but you might. For example, I haven't noted the execution of certain of the satraps, following the return from Gedrosia.

I'm also not doing all the Indians - just those easily identifiable, or fairly easily identifiable as Persians (who might be Medes or Babylonians, Bactrians or Sogdians, as well, just to muddy the waters).

ATB

Marcus

PS: Just noticed that you've changed your avatar, to the picture of Alexander from the 19th century cigar tin. Cool!

[marcus]

Just sent you a file by email, Amyntoros.

Hope it satisfied your requirements ...

If anyone else would like a similar list of the Persians named in the Alexander histories, drop me a PM with your email address, and I'll pop it across to you. It's an Excel file.

ATB

[marcus]

I suppose I've always worked on the basis that only the most prominent are named purely because they were the "important" ones ... and of course this is borne out by the brides they were given. So however important Chares was to Alexander on a personal, secretarial level, he wasn't a high-ranking soldier, and so ... what, one of Roxane's handmaidens, perhaps?

IMO, one of the reasons behind the multiple marriages was to appease the remaining Persian elite – to convince them how much they were still valued - and he did this by marrying their women to his own Greek and Macedonian elite. Obviously he had to first deal with the remnants of Persian royalty, but surely the other women who are not listed in Arrian were daughters or sisters of previously high ranking Persians? Why include them otherwise? Therefore, I’m not sure if a handmaiden of Roxane’s would have qualified unless she also had family connections.

Sorry, got caught up with your request for a list of Persians, and therefore missed answering this.

I've no doubt that one of Roxane's "handmaidens" could have been fairly high ranking - I'm thinking of the medieval period, when noble daughters were often placed as maids to a higher-ranking noblewomen ... or the queen, even ... as a sort of "training ground" similar to the male pages.

Of course, I was being slightly facetious, anyway ...

ATB

[dean]

Hello,

Just out of curosity I was wondering, if it wasn't Seleucus who was one of the only ones whose marriage lasted "to the end"?

I was under the impression that the marriages all pretty much ran amock once Alexander had died. It is often said that the last thing on Alexander's mind was fusion of people blah blah blah and I agre. But Alexander was looking for some kind of "marriage" via the mass Marriages of Susa.

I guess the amount of people getting married at any one time must go down in the Guinness book of records- but I suppose by now this number has been beaten or has it?
It certainly is a lot of people to tie the knot, or "cut the bread" as they say.

Well take it easy!!
Dean

[marcus]

Hello,

Just out of curosity I was wondering, if it wasn't Seleucus who was one of the only ones whose marriage lasted "to the end"?

I was under the impression that the marriages all pretty much ran amock once Alexander had died. It is often said that the last thing on Alexander's mind was fusion of people blah blah blah and I agre. But Alexander was looking for some kind of "marriage" via the mass Marriages of Susa.

I guess the amount of people getting married at any one time must go down in the Guinness book of records- but I suppose by now this number has been beaten or has it?
It certainly is a lot of people to tie the knot, or "cut the bread" as they say.

Well take it easy!!
Dean

I think those mass Moonie weddings in Korea have many more couples marrying at one time ...

Anyway, yes, Seleucus' marriage to Apama is the only one that we know of which "lasted". Apama was the mother of Antiochus I, who shared the kingship with Seleucus (keeping an eye on Bactria for the most part) until Seleucus died, whereupon he became sole king. Apama was honoured with at least three cities named for her (as Apamea, of course).

We have no evidence that any of the other brides were kept on, although as usual silence does not prove a case.

ATB

[amyntoros]

First of all, many thanks, Marcus for the file.

Just out of curosity I was wondering, if it wasn't Seleucus who was one of the only ones whose marriage lasted "to the end"?

Anyway, yes, Seleucus' marriage to Apama is the only one that we know of which "lasted".

A perfect time to ask about something that has bugged me for a while. Eumenes was give Aronis (Artonis, Artone) as a wife at Susa, and when he died, “Antigonus granted his body to his friends, permitted them to burn it, and having gathered his ashes into a silver urn, to send them to his wife and children.” (Plutarch, Eumenes 19.2). My interpretation of this is that his marriage to Artonis must have lasted; however, this is never mentioned by any modern historian. Heckel claims that the reference in Plutarch is "apparently Artonis and her children though, given the age of Eumenes, this could refer to the family Eumenes left behind when he went to Asia in 334.” But why?

Eumenes would have been around 36 when he married Artonis, hardly too old to have fathered children. Does Heckel think that he must have married and sired offspring before he left for Asia, because of his age? All the other names given in the Susa marriage list are of a similar age, or older, with the exception of Seleucus. Could this mean they also left brides and children behind in Macedonia? And whether it only applies to Eumenes or to the others as well, previous Macedonian wives would mean that Alexander approved of polygamy outside of the royal family - he’s the one who arranged the marriages after all.

I notice that Antigonus was not given a bride. Was this because he wasn’t important enough, or because, being older, he was already married? If the latter, then the others could not have left wives behind, could they?

Too many questions evolving from Heckel’s statement, while the obvious – that Eumenes was still married to Artonis – makes perfect sense to me. Any thoughts on this?

Best regards

[Taphoi]

Eumenes would have been around 36 when he married Artonis, hardly too old to have fathered children. Does Heckel think that he must have married and sired offspring before he left for Asia, because of his age? All the other names given in the Susa marriage list are of a similar age, or older, with the exception of Seleucus. Could this mean they also left brides and children behind in Macedonia? And whether it only applies to Eumenes or to the others as well, previous Macedonian wives would mean that Alexander approved of polygamy outside of the royal family - he’s the one who arranged the marriages after all.

Nepos adds that Eumenes' bones were returned to his mother, wife and children in Cappadocia. I think this makes it tricky for this wife to have previously been left behind in Macedonia, since she must have been settled in Cappadocia soon after Eumenes captured the region with the assistance of Perdiccas in 322BC. Furthermore, any "children" (the word is liberi in the Latin, which seems to mean children while they are young) left behind in 334BC would no longer have been children in 316BC.

I notice that Antigonus was not given a bride. Was this because he wasn’t important enough, or because, being older, he was already married?

I believe Antigonus was in Phrygia at the time of the Susa marriages, so his participation would have been difficult to arrange.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I believe Antigonus was in Phrygia at the time of the Susa marriages, so his participation would have been difficult to arrange.

Would it though? Thousands of performers and guests came all the way from Greece for the wedding so unless there was instability in Phrygia and Antigonus' presence was required there, he must have been able to travel to Susa.

That's not really my point though because I was using him as an example to illustrate that there's little support for Eumenes being given a bride at Susa if he was already married. The rest of your post seems to be in agreement that Eumenes kept his Persian wife, so I guess that’s two votes for Seleucus not being the only one. Still, I’m curious as to why this is rarely (never?) mentioned.

Best regards,

[marcus]

Would it though? Thousands of performers and guests came all the way from Greece for the wedding so unless there was instability in Phrygia and Antigonus' presence was required there, he must have been able to travel to Susa.

That's not really my point though because I was using him as an example to illustrate that there's little support for Eumenes being given a bride at Susa if he was already married. The rest of your post seems to be in agreement that Eumenes kept his Persian wife, so I guess that’s two votes for Seleucus not being the only one. Still, I’m curious as to why this is rarely (never?) mentioned.

Antigonus could, of course, have been one of the "other Companions" who was given a wife. However, because Antigonus played a major part in the wars of the Diadochoi, up to 301BC, anyway, I would have expected him to be named in the list of grooms. No specific reason why he should have been, but it would be reasonable to expect it.

As for Eumenes - I confess I hadn't come across that passage before (that I remember, anyway) and I agree that it does rather suggest that he kept his Iranian wife. Maybe the whole thing about Seleucus is that Apama is the only one (a) whose continued status is obvious through the naming of cities; and (b) whose son became a king. Because Eumenes' wife is not named in that passage, we can only surmise who she is (even with a fair degree of certaintly, perhaps), while there's no doubt that Seleucus kept Apama on, in some honour as well!

ATB

Marcus

PS: Ref the list - my pleasure. You can always add more notes to it from Heckel.

[marcus]

Nepos adds that Eumenes' bones were returned to his mother, wife and children in Cappadocia. I think this makes it tricky for this wife to have previously been left behind in Macedonia, since she must have been settled in Cappadocia soon after Eumenes captured the region with the assistance of Perdiccas in 322BC.

Hi Andrew,

Not that I disagree with the general thrust of your post, but the one difficulty is the fact that 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?

Perhaps that's why there still remains suggestion of doubt that it was his Persian wife?

ATB

[jan]

produced some great responses. Thanks everyone!

[Taphoi]

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

[amyntoros]

Antigonus could, of course, have been one of the "other Companions" who was given a wife. However, because Antigonus played a major part in the wars of the Diadochoi, up to 301BC, anyway, I would have expected him to be named in the list of grooms. No specific reason why he should have been, but it would be reasonable to expect it.

That was my reasoning also (hidden somewhat in my poorly written posts). I think Antigonus' status warranted him being given a bride, an event which Arrian would likely have recorded. However, Antigonus was obviously married already - according to Heckel his son Demetrius was born in Macedonia in 336. So if a current marriage caused Antigonus' exclusion from the mass wedding (as I think must be the case) then surely Eumenes would have been excluded as well if he had left a wife behind in Macedonia.

I know, I know … I’m repeating myself … yadda, yadda, yadda …

Best regards,

[Paralus]

That was my reasoning also (hidden somewhat in my poorly written posts). I think Antigonus' status warranted him being given a bride, an event which Arrian would likely have recorded. However, Antigonus was obviously married already - according to Heckel his son Demetrius was born in Macedonia in 336.

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.

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. I don’t think that he will have featured prominently in Alexander’s forward planning other than to hold the satrapy that he had. The marriages – in my opinion – were all about a creation of a “joint nobility” beholden to the king into the future. A bit like the Persian “successors”: troops totally wedded to the monarch. I think the older generation were to be pensioned off eventually (though not with the extreme prejudice shown to Parmenion) and were thus largely irrelevant to this event.

Did Polyperchon get a Persian bride?

If, as has been conjectured, Antipater was summoned to court to be under some closer supervision and help with matters after Alexander’s departure to Arabia, will he have been given a bride?

Perhaps Alexander did not see the ambition in Antigonus that would have him tilting at empire for twenty-two years. He was, after all, out of sight for the greater part of the campaign. More to the point, Alexander was, after Gaugamela, rather more furiously focussed on “his” men, a claque he assiduously promoted and which were loyal to him. I’d think the weddings were aimed at this group rather the rump of the “old guard”.

Antigonus may, though, have simply been left off the list. I’d doubt that though.