Monthly Archives: June 2013

Ancient Greece to Valinor

First of all, apologies again to those of you who received an e-mail telling you I had updated the blog (with the Lane Fox video) and followed a link to nowhere. Not for the first time I published it with the wrong ‘byline’.
.
A few weeks ago I visited the British Museum and made a rare foray into the Parthenon rooms. I took a few photographs. This one is my favourite.
.

Parthenon. Horse Rider

Parthenon. Horse Rider

.
As you can see, the frieze has been much damaged; so-much-so that to me it looks like the horse rider is now hidden from us behind a sheet of dark rain.
.
Rain is a very evocative literary device; for me, nowhere more so than at the end of The Lord of the Rings, when the elven ship carrying Bilbo, Frodo, and the elves to Valinor passes out of our dimension and into the elves’, after passing through a sheet of rain.
.

… the ship went out into the High Sea and passed on into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.

.
This is really what I, and perhaps any of us who engage with the past, are trying to do - pull back the grey rain-curtain of our own ignorance, and other people’s notions, in order to discover Alexander et al for ourselves.
.
When I first saw the above pictured frieze I thought it reminded me of a scene from a film noir, now, it rather comes across as a metaphor for how we meet the past and what we must do in order to discover it.

Categories: Of The Moment | Leave a comment

Robin Lane Fox at the Hellenic Society AGM - Video

A couple of posts ago I talked about Robin Lane Fox’s talk at this year’s Hellenic Society AGM. The society has now posted the video of his talk to You Tube; I strongly recommend it to you.
.

.
(Thank you Alexander’s Army for mentioning the video. I had already forgotten it had been uploaded)

Categories: On Alexander | Leave a comment

A Spiritual Search Takes An Old Twist

BBC Online has a very interesting article about Greeks who worship the dodecatheon - the Twelve Olympian gods. You can read it here.
.
The article reports that ‘The Return of the Hellenes’ is,
.

… a movement trying to bring back the religion, values, philosophy and way of life of ancient Greece, more than 16 centuries after it was replaced by Christianity.

.
However, this statement is not entirely accurate as the article goes on to state that these devotees of the Olympian gods,
.

… don’t actually pray to Zeus, Hera and the others. They see them as representations of values such as beauty, health or wisdom.

.
This disconnection with the past seems to me to be so profound as to make me wonder why they are bothering to use the name of Zeus et al. Having said that, it is good that they at least care enough to try and find answers. For that reason, I would not - like Robert Parker of Oxford University - call them ‘kooky’ or ‘ridiculous’, and certainly not ‘miserable resuscitators’. For one thing, they are not resuscitating anything but re-inventing; for another, that is language unbecoming an official of a Christian Church.
.
The one aspect of the Hellenes’ beliefs that I really don’t like is their apparent view that they,
.

… consider Greece to be a country under Christian occupation.

.
This seems to me to be as unnecessarily insulting towards their fellow Greeks as Parker and the unnamed official are towards them. Christianity may not be the indigenous religion of Greece (are the dodecatheon? No, if only because a political unit called Greece did not exist in antiquity) but after being brought to the poleis it was taken on by Greeks and made their own. The Hellenes, whose country has been under real occupation by a foreign power in the recent past, should be mindful of this.

Categories: Of The Moment | Leave a comment

An Imposition of Meaning

The British Museum Press has published a book titled A Little Gay History. If this article on The Straight Dope is accurate, you would expect the book to cover male homosexuality from the middle of the twentieth century onwards; however, there is a picture of Hadrian and Antinous on the front cover. I would be surprised if Alexander and Hephaestion did not feature inside.
.
I am sure A Little Gay History is an excellent book but I do wish they had found a different title for it. I do not know very much about Roman sexual identity but I would be surprised if Hadrian would have described himself as a gay (i.e. homosexual) man. Alexander certainly would not have done.
.
I have said it elsewhere, but it always bears repeating; in modern terms, Alexander was, if anything, bisexual*. However, we should not use use this term to describe him as in so doing we impose our modern understanding, and definition, of sexual identity upon him. Calling Alexander bisexual, therefore, is both patronising towards him and irrelevant when it comes to comprehending how he understood himself, which is surely one of the the points of our engagement with him whether in fiction, a discussion, or an academic work.
.
For obvious reasons I have focused on Alexander in this post, but what I have said about him applies to all Greeks in antiquity. This brings me to the second problem with the title. The Straight Dope article, written in 1986, mentions that lesbians are sometimes called gay. Twenty-seven years on I imagine instances of this are common but it is telling that we talk about the LGBT movement rather than ‘gay rights’ (except in shorthand). A Little Gay History talks about women’s sexuality as well as men’s. It might have been better, therefore, if the title - if it was going to insist upon using modern terms - at least reflected the broad range of sexualities it covers rather than using one which - though it has an umbrella usage - still popularly refers to one type.
.
* There is no direct proof of Alexander having a sexual relationship with Hephaestion but the indirect evidence, which for me stems from his self-identification as Achilles and Hephaestion as Patroclus - who by the fourth century BC were regarded as having been lovers, means that I would not argue for what we would call his heterosexuality.

Categories: Of The Moment | Leave a comment

Fermor’s Heir: Rory Stewart

Further to my recent post on Patrick Leigh Fermor and General Kreipe, I thought I would ‘break a lance’ for another Englishman who has embodied a little of Alexander’s adventurous spirit.
.
Rory Stewart is a Conservative MP now but in 2002 he decided for reasons best known to himself to walk across Afghanistan from Herat (visited by Alexander) to Kabul. What makes this walk especially impressive is that Stewart undertook it not long after the American led invasion of the country to drive out the Taliban. Stewart received the help of sundry Afghans along the way but his sojourn was not without its dangers from the deposed militants. His book The Places In Between is a wonderfully evocative account of his one month trek.
.
As if crossing Afghanistan was not enough excitement for him, Stewart then went to Iraq in 2003 to help the Coalition forces set up a new government following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t easy what with rival Iraqi groups vying for power, militia trying to storm his camp and the usual difficulties of being shot or blown up. Stewart’s book on this experience is titled Occupational Hazards and is also a great read.
.
As I mentioned above, Stewart is now an MP so I fear his adventuring days are over. Wikipedia also reports that he has gone and got married, which is surely the death knell for any future mad expedition. If David Cameron has any sense, though, he will surely promote Stewart to the front benches before the next General Election in 2015.
.
(Apologies to those of you who read this post earlier today. I have reposted it as the first version had the wrong ‘byline’)

Categories: Echoes of Alexander | Leave a comment

Robin Lane Fox and the Hellenic Society AGM

I have just got home through sun and rain from the Hellenic Society’s 2012-13 AGM in London’s West End. I was alerted to the meeting yesterday by a very kind soul, and was persuaded to attend by the fact that Robin Lane-Fox, Alexander scholar and Companion Cavalry extra in Oliver Stone’s film about the king, was giving a lecture on “Alexander and the Gods - and the early Successors’.
.
I took notes as RLF spoke, but as mine are never good enough to form a cohesive account of lectures, I will just give my impressions of some what I heard. I hope I have represented what Lane-Fox said accurately, but please be aware that I do not write shorthand!
.
A Little (Big?) Revelation
First and foremost, Lane-Fox told us about a pedestal that was discovered in the Bahariya Oasis, near Siwah, and taken to Cairo’s Museum of Egyptian Antiquities before being forgotten about until a few years ago when it was discovered in the basement. The photograph that he showed us revealed the pedestal to be about a metre high and the colour of sandstone. The top, probably where a dedicatory object would have been placed, is missing. The pedestal has Egyptian hieroglyphs and Greek letters carved into it, but is notable because the writing details all five of Alexander’s pharaonic titles. Apparently inscriptions usually only contain three or so of them. The following text also appears on the pedestal,
.

The king Alexander to Ammon (his) father

.
It’s either this dedication or the titles that proves that the pedestal was made in Alexander’s lifetime as it/they would not have been written posthumously. What Lane-Fox suggested might have happened is that after being ‘confirmed’ as the son of Ammon-Zeus at Siwah, Alexander passed through the Bahariya Oasis where he stopped at the temple. Following this visit, the pedestal was made. I can’t remember if Lane-Fox said if it was made as part of a new temple or not.
.
Either way, the pedestal is still not known about by most Hellenists, which, given its apparent important seems extraordinary. If you want to know more about it, the man who found it and - I hope - is writing about it for publication is Francisco Bosch-Puche of Oxford University.
.
In fact, no sooner had I written the above, I found this; I would certainly like to read Bosch-Puche’s paper!
.
Before moving on, I’d like to refer back to the above quoted inscription. Apparently, there is controversy over whether Macedonian kings were called King such-and-such. The pedestal proves that they were. Roof tiles have also been discovered referring to Basileus Philip.
.
Names
Whenever I read anything about Alexander, I am always very aware that I am very probably pronouncing at least some of the Macedonian/Greek names wrongly. It was good, therefore, to hear Robin Lane-Fox’s pronunciation - even if, as in the case of Hephaestion, his name is pronounced so differently as to make it seem almost a different name. Here are some of the names I wrote down and their phonetic pronunciation:
.
Aegae Ay - gay
Aristobulos A - ristoh - bu - los
Barsine Bar - sy - nee
Delos Dee - los
Gaugamela Gor - go - meh - la
Gonatas Gone - atas
Hephaestion Heh - fee - stee - oh*
Philippi Fy - li - pie
Phryne Fry - nee
Samos Say - mos
*I’m pretty sure RLF said ‘oh’ and not ‘on’
.
Facts and Comparisons
As mentioned above, Robin Lane-Fox appeared in Oliver Stone’s Alexander. He was a consultant, and if I remember correctly, his price for helping Stone with the historical authenticity of the film was to be able to mount a horse as an extra, and ride into battle alongside Colin Farrell. During the talk, Lane-Fox brought up a slide of Angelina Jolie, who played Alexander’s mother, Olympias. In one of the slides, she is holding a snake - Olympias had a cultic passion for them. “Yes, that snake,” he said, “she put that down my trousers!”
.
Later on, Lane-Fox came to Demetrius Poliorcetes. How would you describe him? He was certainly dashing, also daring; glamorous? Yes. Long maned? Possibly. Lane-Fox looked no further than Michael Heseltine! From Hezza to Dezza! On a roll, he than said that you could say that Alexander was as controversial a figure as a certain Margaret Roberts-! Finally, Lane-Fox reached his zenith when he began talking about tarts (prostitutes) and super-tarts (Harpalus’ courtesan girlfriend). I wonder what he would have called Thaïs who ‘dated’ the next pharaoh of Egypt.
.
Final Words
Lane-Fox’s talk had three strands. i. The precedence for divine honours being paid to living men before Alexander’s time (I think those paid to Lysander of Sparta were after he died?) ii. What happened during Alexander’s life (If nothing else, there is no evidence that he demanded anyone pay him divine honours) iii. What the Successors did (Seleucus made an issue of his divine ancestry but Ptolemy, despite being pharaoh, didn’t). The talk was recorded, so I hope it is uploaded to the Hellenic Society’s website or You Tube in due course. In this post, I have really skirted round the talk; it was a good one, though, and whether in written form or on video will be well worth checking out.

Categories: Of The Moment | 3 Comments

Hephaestion, Regent or King

The exact date of Alexander the Great’s death is not known but it appears to have been either today, 10th June, or tomorrow, in 323 BC.
.
In this post, I would like to indulge in a little counter factual discussion by asking what might have happened to Alexander’s empire after his death if Hephaestion had still been living in June 323.
.
The reason this question interests me is that at the time of his own death in November 324, Hephaestion held the rank of chiliarch, meaning that he was Alexander’s deputy. Had he lived, therefore, it would have been him assigning satrapies to Alexander’s senior officers in June 323 rather than his successor in that office, Perdiccas.
.
So, what might have happened?
.
I see no reason to think that the same men would not have got the same offices, barring changes here and there, that they got in real settlement. The key difference would have been ideological. I am certain that Hephaestion, unlike Perdiccas, will have wanted Alexander IV to ascend to his throne in the fullness of time. Perhaps Hephaestion would also have continued Alexander’s integrationist policies out of loyalty to his friend’s ideals.
.
Of course, Hephaestion would have had to have stayed alive in order to see his - Alexander’s - legacy secured, but he was as good a soldier as any in Alexander’s high command. His relationship to the late king was probably unorthodox - it wasn’t the done thing for adult men to be in a sexual relationship with one another in those days - but I am sure that with a good propagandist Hephaestion could have convinced the army, which was pro-Argead, to support him. Certainly, so far as staying alive is concerned, he would never have made the same mistake as Perdiccas did outside Memphis.
.
In other words, I believe that had Hephaestion gone to war against Ptolemy as Perdiccas did, or tried to do, there is no reason to believe that he would not have seen it through, and once he controlled Egypt… well, Ptolemy did alright from there, didn’t he?
.
In fact, Ptolemy was so well entrenched in Egypt that he survived a catastrophic mauling at the hands of Demetrius Poliorcetes in 306 during the fourth diadoch war. Ptolemy lost half of his armed forces and control of the Aegean in the naval battle for Cyprus but to the best of my knowledge did not face any challenge to his authority in Egypt. Antigonus Monophthalmus and Demetrius subsequently tried to invade Egypt with a huge - 90,000 strong - army but the Ptolemaic defences were still too strong for them.
.
Again, if Ptolemy - a man with considerably less high level military experience than Hephaestion - could manage that, then why not/how much more Patroclus himself?
.
The above notwithstanding, the ability to fight well would not have been enough to see Alexander IV to the throne. I suspect Hephaestion would have needed to have make a few deals along the way as well - especially since what really happened after Alexander’s death shows that very few of the Successors - perhaps only Eumenes, and maybe Craterus (?) - had any interest in seeing Alexander IV come to the throne. None so far as I can tell had any time for the late king’s integrationist policies. Hephaestion was a seasoned diplomat, though, and I am sure he would have held his own on the negotiating table. Not that treaties in those days seemed to have been worth the papyrus or clay that they were written on. With the right cunning, though, Hephaestion could easily have worked even that to his advantage.
.
Had Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV died anyway, could Hephaestion have reunited Alexander’s empire under his own name? I am determined to say ‘yes’ to this. The two men who really came closest to doing so - Antigonus Monophthalmus and Seleucus - were, in Alexander’s lifetime, high ranking officers but no more special than any of the others. We hardly see Antigonus at all since he got left behind in Asia Minor at the start of the anabasis. As with Ptolemy, If they nearly managed it, I see no reason why Hephaestion could not have done. I must admit, though, I doubt he would have proved any more successful than Seleucus at holding back the Indian conqueror, Chandragupta.
.
Such questions! And all, ultimately, unanswerable ones. For sadly, Hephaestion died eight months before Alexander. Still, we can dream. And if we feel that dreaming of what might have been is too hard or simply useless then perhaps we might dream instead about Achilles and Patroclus in Elysium, at play in the land of the gods.

Categories: The Way of the (Ancient) World | 8 Comments

The Wars of the Successors: Not Even the Strongest Are Safe

See previous chapters here
.
This post is the second in my series on the forty-two year struggle between Alexander’s successors for control of some or all of his empire. By Successors I mean not only his senior officers at his death (Perdiccas, Craterus etc) but, as we shall see in subsequent posts, the sons of those same officers.
.
I am writing these posts because I have just finished reading Robin Waterfield’s Dividing the Spoils on the subject and writing out a timeline based on the information that he provides. Any mistakes in the information below are, of course, my own.
.
322 - 320/19 The First War of the Diadochi
.
Principle Combatants
Eumenes vs Neoptolemus - Eumenes wins
Craterus vs Eumenes - Eumenes wins
Perdiccas vs Ptolemy - Ptolemy wins (by default; Perdiccas assassinated by own men)
.
Locations

  • Border of Asia Minor/Cappadocia
  • Egypt
  • Cappadocia
  • Pisidia

Outcome

  • Re-arrangement of the empire at the Triparadeisus Conference
  • A great increase in Antigonus Monophthalmus’ personal power

That Alexander’s Successors (diadochi) would soon come to blows was hinted at during the Lamian War when Perdiccas offered to help the Greek cities in their war against Antipater. He did this because he feared that the alliance created by Antipater with Craterus and Leonnatus would threaten him if it defeated the Greek cities.
.
The First War of the Diadochi began in 322. Antipater and Craterus (Leonnatus died in the Lamian conflict) obtained permission from Lysimachus, governor of Thrace, to pass through his territory on their way to Asia Minor (via the Hellespont). Perdiccas was having none of this and ordered White Cleitus to guard the Hellespont with his fleet. Eumenes, Alexander’s old secretary, was on Perdiccas’ side, and the regent gave him 20,000 men to protect Asia Minor. He also ordered his brother, Alcestas, and Neoptolemus to help Eumenes.
.
This war would not just be Antipater and Craterus vs Perdiccas, however; Antigonus had already decided to oppose Perdiccas, and he soon delivered a heavy blow to the regent by securing the defection of Asander and Menander (satraps of Caria and Lydia). It nearly got even worse for Perdiccas when Antigonus came close to capturing Eumenes, too. Eumenes was told of his approach just in time and escaped.
.
Cunning was a hallmark of the allies. Having already persuaded some of the Greek cities to not fight him at the Battle of Krannon, Antipater managed now to persuade White Cleitus to defect to his side. He didn’t have it all his own way, though, for overtures to Neoptolemus had so far proved inconclusive, while Eumenes had spurned his advances.
.
Things got worse for Perddicas when his brother Alcetas announced that he would not support Eumenes. He feared that if he did so, his men might defect to the popular general. As a result of this decision, he kept his army in Pisidia (south western Asia Minor).
.
A lesser man might have quailed at how the war was going even before any fighting had started. Perdiccas, though, was not going to sit back and let things simply happen to him. He marched from Cappadocia (where he had gone to put down a rebellious Persian ruler) to Cilicia (south-east Asia Minor) and there divided his fleet between,

  • Attalus, who was ordered to sail to Egypt - alongside the land army that Perdiccas was taking there to fight Ptolemy, and
  • Aristonous, one of Alexander’s somatophylakes (Bodyguards), who was given orders to occupy Cyprus, which was not only in a very strategic location but had excellent natural resources.

Antipater and Craterus crossed the Hellespont. Once in Asia Minor they separated - Craterus began his march to Cappadocia, to confront Eumenes, while Antipater marched to resource rich Cilicia, which he intended to occupy (Perdiccas having moved south to Egypt). As for Antigonus he sailed to Cyprus to take on Aristonous.
.
First Battle: Eumenes vs Neoptolemus
Border of Asia Minor/Cappadocia

Antipater finally persuaded Neoptolemus to defect. Upon doing so, Neoptolemus set out with his army to link up with his new ally but was intercepted by Eumenes.
.
Eumenes won the subsequent battle in May 320 - the first of the Macedonian civil war. Neoptolemus and some of his cavalry escaped from the battlefield, but Eumenes succeeded in capturing his baggage train. This was very useful because it allowed him to ‘persuade’ Neoptolemus’ soldiers to join his army. The inverted commas are because it was probably more a case of ‘join me if you ever want to see your wife/girlfriend, money and possessions ever again’. Darius III’s men captured Alexander’s baggage train at Gaugamela but fortunately it was too late for the king to try that on with Alexander.
.
Second Battle: Craterus vs Eumenes
Border of Asia Minor/Cappadocia
.
On paper, this should have been a nailed on win for Craterus. However, Eumenes emerged the victor after launching a surprise attack on Craterus’ phalanx with his cavalry. Craterus became the second Successor to be killed after he fell from and was trampled by his horse.
.
The brilliance of Eumenes’ win cannot be underestimated. Like Alcetas, Eumenes feared that his men might defect to Craterus if they knew they were about to fight fellow Macedonians. So, he told them the general approaching them was Neoptolemus, a Molossian (an Epirotian tribe).
.
Eumenes was still not comfortable. So, he resorted to a trick that others would try again in the future - he told his men that Alexander had appeared to him in a dream and told him that victory would be his.
.
And so it was. Craterus, however, was not the only Successor to die that day. Eumenes fought Neoptolemus in a duel and killed him. And you thought duels only happened in Star Wars. That’s how tough these men were.
.
After Craterus’ and Neoptolemus’ death, Eumenes made peace with the now leaderless enemy soldiers. Many of them joined his army, though some or all would later slip away and return to Antipater’s side.
.
Seeing what happened in Cappadocia persuaded Alcetas to stay loyal to Perdiccas, and he joined Eumenes
.
Perdiccas in Egypt
.
Perdiccas marched from Cilicia to Egypt. Despite his rank and authority as regent to Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV men still deserted from his army. Waterfield says Ptolemy ‘undoubtedly’ had a fifth column operating in Perdiccas’ army. What do you think?
.
Despite the desertions, Perdiccas arrived at the Nile near Memphis. It is here that everything started to go wrong for the man who would be emperor.
.
To reach Memphis (Egypt’s then capital), the river needed to be forded; it was, however, fast flowing. Perdiccas ordered his men across, using his war elephants up-river to break up the flow of the water. But the men crossing the river destabilised the river bed effectively making it deeper. Before long, the river had become too deep to traverse. Perdiccas was forced to recall those men who have already crossed it, only to see hundreds die when they were swept away by the current.
.
Generals in antiquity lived and died according to how successful they were. This is why it was so easy for soldiers captured by one general after a battle to end up serving the man they had surrendered to. Perdiccas was asking for trouble by losing so many men really for no good reason at all, and very soon after that trouble came to him.
.
Peithon, another of Alexander’s somatophylakes, and Antigenes (who, like Antigonus, also had one eye) visited Perdiccas in his tent under the pretence that they wished to discuss official business. Once inside, they assassinated him. Thus died the most powerful (at that time) Successor of all.
.
Ptolemy’s Gamble
.
As I read about the Wars of the Successors, Ptolemy comes across to me as a very cautious man. After Perdiccas’ death, however, he surely threw that caution to the wind when he entered the Perdiccas’ camp, to be arrested and put on trial. Waterfield doesn’t say what the charges against Ptolemy were, but one could imagine them being crimes against the kings. It didn’t matter, though, for he was acquitted of all charges.
.
The cleaning of Ptolemy’s name meant the blackening of Perdiccas’, which had fatal consequences for the remaining senior Perdiccans as I will shortly explain.
.
After the trial, Waterfield explains that Ptolemy ‘endeared’ himself to Perdiccas’ men by promising to give them supplies and let them go wither they would. I have to say that, given the uncertainty of the age, it could have gone very badly wrong for Ptolemy, on this day, though, he played an absolute blinder. Personally, I can’t think of any other Successor who put himself under such intense danger off the battlefield.
.
While at the camp, Ptolemy was offered the now vacant role of regent but refused it. On the face of it this seems rather surprising. Ptolemy already had Alexander’s body, wouldn’t his prestige among the Successors go up a hundred fold if he had the kings, too? Well, Perdiccas’ didn’t, so I have to reject that thought. What it would certainly have done, though, is make Egypt that much more of a target for the other Successors.
.
As I said above, I think Ptolemy was a very cautious man. I don’t think he wanted to own very much more than Egypt and some buffer zones. He did make a half-hearted attempt to invade Egypt in 309 but quickly withdrew after the Greek cities showed no sign of wanting to treat with him. Having Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV nearby would have endangered his attempt to build his power and authority in Egypt, and so he turned down the chance to be their regent.
.
After Ptolemy’s refusal, Peithon and Arrhidaeus took over the regency, instead. Perdiccas’ army was not done with holding trials, though. Upon hearing of the death of Craterus, it put Eumenes, Alcetas and sundry other Perdiccans on trial in absentia. Naturally, they were found guilty of the charges against them, and were sentenced to death; those Perdiccans unlucky enough to be at hand, were executed. This included Perdiccas’ sister.
.
There was a pause in the fighting after Perdiccas’ failed invasion of Egypt while the Successors met in Triparadeisus to rearrange Alexander’s empire yet again.
.
By-the-bye, Waterfield says that Triparadeisus was a huge royal park that may be near modern day Baalbek, which is in north-eastern Lebanon.
.
At Triparadeisus, Antigonus was given authority to mop up the remaining Perdiccan forces. He began this in earnest when he confronted Eumenes in Cappadocia.
.
Third Battle: Antoginus vs Eumenes
Cappadocia
.
For someone who had proven himself a skilled general, Eumenes deserved better than defeat by mid-battle defection, yet this is what happened when members of his cavalry suddenly went over to Antigonus’ side. Once again, Antigonus had used his cunning to get the result, this time by playing on Eumenes’ inherent unpopularity caused by his being Greek rather than Macedonian.
.
Eumenes survived the battle - he and a few of his army escaped into the Cappadocian mountains where they would carry out a guerrilla war against Antigonus. He ended up, though, under siege in a mountain fortress at somewhere called Nora (location unknown).
.
Fourth Battle: Antigonus vs Alcetas
Pisidia
.
Antigonus put Nora under siege and left for Pisidia where he confronted Alcetas. This battle occupies four lines in Dividing the Spoils so I imagine not much is not about except the salient fact that Antigonus won, and won handsomely. Alcetas committed suicide.
.
For me, the natural end of the First War of the Diadochi is after Perdiccas’ death and the Triparadeisus Conference, but Waterfield says it ended in 319 with Antigonus’ victories against Eumenes and Alcetas so out of respect to him, here we are.
.
And here is a list of the Successors killed between 322 - 319:

  • Craterus - Border of Asia Minor/Cappadocia 320 BC
  • Neoptolemus - Border of Asia Minor / Cappadocia 320 BC
  • Perdiccas - Egypt 320 BC
  • Alcetas - Pisidia, Asia Minor 319 BC

Next: Round Two (Bigger and bloodier than before)

Categories: The Wars of the Successors | 7 Comments

The Wars of the Successors: The Warm Up

See other chapters here
.
I recently finished reading Robin Waterfield’s super Dividing the Spoils, which is all about the forty-two year battle between Alexander’s Successors to win control of (all or part of) his empire. If you would like to know more about what, I think, is a relatively unregarded period, sandwiched as it is between Alexander’s mighty deeds and the rise of Rome, I highly recommend the book to you.
.
As I read Dividing the Spoils, I wrote out a timeline of the events on MS Excel to help me remember what happened where (and when), and also to find ideas for what I hope will be a series of short ‘in their own voices’ stories as told by the diadochi for this blog.
.
In his book, Waterfield states that the wars of the Successors could be considered to be the first true world war, taking place as they did, all over the known world. In this series of posts, then, I thought I would have a look at where (and when) the battles did indeed occur giving a very brief outline of what happened as I go.
.
If you spot any mistakes, please do let me know in the comments box!
.
323 11th June. Alexander III died.
.
323 - 322 The Lamian War
.
Principle Combatants
Greek cities vs Antipater - Antipater wins
.
Locations

  • Thermopylae
  • Lamia in central Greece;
  • The sea off Abydos
  • The sea of Amorgos
  • Krannon

Outcome

  • The Greek cities are put down and Antipater gets ready to wage war on Perdiccas

The Greek poleis were never very happy being under Macedonian control so after news of Alexander’s death got back to Greece it was no surprise that they rebelled. Among the rebellious cities were Athens and Aetolia. They appointed a man named Leosthenes to lead the allied army. He used money - taken, ironically, from Alexander’s childhood friend Harpalus - to hire mercenaries to strengthen the Greek force.
.
It didn’t do him much good, sadly; despite defeating Antipater at Thermopylae and trapping him in Lamia, Leosthenes was killed in a skirmish there during the winter of 323-2.
.
Leosthenes was not the only high profile casualty of the war. Antipater summoned Craterus and Leonnatus, from Cilicia and Phrygia respectively, to help him prosecute the war. Leonnatus was killed when the Greek army intercepted his own as it marched to rescue Antipater in Lamia. He was the first of the Successors to be slain.
.
Despite their general’s death, Leonnatus’ army defeated the Greek allies and broke into Lamia, thus rescuing Antipater.
.
While Antipater was taking care of business on land, Cleitus was doing the same at sea. He had been sent by Craterus to challenge the Athenian navy. In June 322, Cleitus squared off against the Athenians at Abydos and Amorgos, defeating them in both engagements.
.
By-the-bye, Wikipedia tells me that this Cleitus was the one whom we call ‘The White’ to distinguish him from Black Cleitus, (in)famously killed by Alexander in 328 in a drunken rage.
.
The Lamian War ended after the Battle of Krannon (which is a few miles south-west of modern day Larissa). Antipater won on the battlefield and with no little cunning - he bribed some of the Greek allies to quit the rebel army. From Krannon he marched to Athens to pay it back for daring to rebel against him.
.
Successors killed:

  • Leonnatus - Lamia 322 BC

Next: The First War of the Diadochi (S*** gets real)

Categories: The Wars of the Successors | Leave a comment

On Writing Alexander

I have read some comments on the Alexander’s Army website here expressing disappointment that one man (me) is behind the Twitter accounts that you see on the right hand side side-bar; as I am not a member of Alexander’s Army so am unable to comment there, I would like to address some of the issues raised here.
.
Firstly, I am very sorry that anyone is disappointed or finds it ‘creepy’ that one person manages the various accounts. I am not tweeting Alexander and co’s journey across the world in order to scare anyone.
.
So, why then do I write the four accounts?
.
Principally, I write them because I want to see if Twitter can be used as a creative format, that is to say, as a means of writing/telling a story in the way a poem or novel can.
.
Can it? Based on my own experience, I would say, yes; although, for my part, not without difficulty. It will probably not surprise you to learn that that difficulty comes from the fact that Twitter is meant to be a social media website rather than a new format for creative expression. Round pegs and square holes.
.
Thus, while it feels very natural to write a conversation between two characters in a traditionally laid out short story on this blog, doing so on Twitter feels quite unnatural. This may be because Twitter is fundamentally unsuitable for use as a creative format or it may be that I am simply not very good at using it in that fashion. That’s really for the reader to decide. I am happy enough, though, to continue with the project for now (and, if all goes well, I shall continue until I reach the death of Alexander).
.
Finally, the reason I have identified myself on this blog as the writer of the various accounts is for both a negative and positive reason.
.
Negative: the continuing unnaturalness of the Twitter format has come to make me feel uncomfortable at the thought of anyone being forced to think that the accounts are the product of multiple people because I have totally hidden myself. I feel a responsibility to my readers to let them know who is behind what they are reading.
.
Positive: I would simply like the accounts to be seen as this amateur writer’s creative effort to tell the story of Alexander and his friends. I don’t want to do that within the account, as is common with Twitter rôle playing accounts, as that would spoil the illusion, so here seemed to be the next best place.
.
I have probably missed out as much from the comment thread on Alexander’s Army as I have referred to here so would be happy to answer queries in the comments below.

Categories: Of The Moment | 10 Comments

Blog at WordPress.com. Customized Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers