After Alexander died, the Macedonian phalanx and cavalry divided over who should succeed him. The phalanx wanted Alexander’s half-brother, Arrhidaeos, to do so. The cavalry, however, which included Alexander’s most senior officers, were opposed to this. The two sides nearly came to blows before reaching a compromise: Arrhidaeos would become king and Perdiccas, leader of the cavalry faction, his regent (See Diodorus XVIII.2). A few months later, when Alexander’s son, Alexander IV, was born, he was made co-king (See Justin XIII.4).
The peace that this arrangement brought about held for virtually no time at all. After dividing the satrapies of the empire among Alexander’s senior officers, Perdiccas sent Peithon to quell a revolt of Greek settlers in Bactria and Sogdia (Diodorus XVIII.4; see also Dio. XVII.99). Peithon accepted the commission but he did not intend to fight the rebellious settlers; rather, he intended to win them over to his side and take power in Bactria and Sogdia (Diodorus XVIII.7). As it happens, Peithon was foiled in his plan but his was the first act of rebellion by one of Alexander’s commanders, and it set the stage for the conflict that would continue for forty years.
So, that is what happened. But did it need to?
Well, the cavalry could have sent Roxane home and accepted Arrhidaeos as their king, allowing him to rule under the aegis of a regent. In the summer of 323 this didn’t happen because the cavalry knew that Arrhidaeos was unfit to rule: he had a physical or mental impediment that made it impossible. Of course, they did eventually allow it to happen, but when it did, the Wars of the Successors started.
An alternative would have been for Arrhidaeos to be sent home and Roxane’s child, if a boy, to be elevated to the throne, instead. Of course, he too would have required a regent, but only until he came of age.
Or, Alexander’s illegitimate son Heracles could have been made king, instead (Curtius X.6.10-12).
These were the options. Why did the Successors not take them? Or, when they did, why did they not adhere to them?
A mixture of reasons. Arrhidaeos’ mental/physical impediment denied him the authority that he needed to rule. Moreover, it meant that he could never lead from the front, which is what a Macedonian king had to be able to do.
As for Alexander IV, I believe he was rejected out of fear; the Successors feared that when he came of age, Alexander might strip them of the power they had enjoyed for the previous eighteen years, and have them killed.
Why would Alexander IV do this? After all, he would have known that he owed his empire to the Successors. This is true, but the Macedonian political situation in the late fourth century BC was too unstable to permit Alexander IV to trust anyone. He would know full well that as long as the generals lived they would be rivals to his throne. He would not be safe until men of his generation, and therefore men with less authority than him, were in the key positions of power. This is why Alexander the Great removed Philtoas and Parmenion, and I believe it is why Cassander assassinated Alexander IV, and why none of the other Successors so much as said a word about it let alone protested or made war on him. They might not have liked what Cassander had done but they liked the idea of being killed even less.
Heracles was rejected because of old fashioned Macedonian (and Greek) racism: he was seen as a barbarian (Curt.X.6.13-14). Had Ptolemy Lagides got his way, Alexander IV would have been rejected for the same reason.
So, back to the headline question: did the Wars of the Successors need to happen?
When Ptolemy rejected Alexander IV and Heracles, he suggested that the generals should rule the empire together (Curt. X.6.15). I suppose this is why Ptolemy is regarded as a separatist. His idea, though, made sense. It would have lead to a kind-of government of all the talents, just what the diverse empire needed.
The only problem was – fear; the same fear that made Cassander kill Alexander IV. Fear is what drove Macedonian politics. It is the reason why, upon his accession in 336 BC, Alexander the Great killed anyone with a rival claim to the throne; it is the reason he had Philotas and Parmenion killed. I think it is one of the reasons why Hephaestion, Craterus and Coenus colluded in the judicial murder of Philotas (Curt. VI.11.10). In the Macedonian royal court, one was either in favour or out, and one had to do what was necessary to stay in. Co-operation happened but one had to be prepared to betray friends and allies as necessary. After all, they might do the same to you – as necessary.
So, no, the Wars of the Successors didn’t need to happen, but I think that the prejudices of the Successors, allied to their legitimate fears, made the conflict inevitable. The only thing that might have stopped it is if Alexander III had died twenty or more years later and if his son had been as strong and determined a person as his father. But even then, all it would have taken is one cup laced with poison…
I have wondered so many times what would have happened had Alexander III lived to an old age, and passed the throne on to Alexandere IV. What a different world it would have been.
You’re right. I dont believe that the war of his Diadochi needed to happen, but as you’ve stated in the article their fear would have, at some point, still drive them to wage the war of control amongst themselves. Though I still often ponder what could have happened if Alexandros’ generals worked hand in hand in stabilizing their deseased king’s conquered empire. The words “to the strongest” have been interpreted by them in different ways. Like those among them who was strongest should rule or…due to prunounciation some were led to believe that Krateros was left as the successor. But what if he meant that he left his kingdom to his army as a whole. Because I do believe that Alexander believed that his army…TOGETHER…was the strongest. That together as a whole they could have continued the legacy and make the empire grow even larger. Well, that’s what I believe anyway.
The empire that Alexander built was vast and fragile. Even as he subdued lands and peoples, it constantly unraveled behind him, causing him to retrace and reconquer parts of it that were recalcitrant. I don’t think it was meant to last, but it was the start of something much bigger than he was. Despite the fact that he wanted to rule the world, he couldn’t do that alone. The Successor Wars were going to happen with or without him. Given Macedonia’s bloody history, how could it not? Alexander’s generals wanted a piece of the pie and they would (and did) kill each other to get it. They let their king be poisoned to death, didn’t they? Well, there, I said it. I believe he was poisoned. How many times was he injured and survived? The army and the generals didn’t want to be stranded on the other side of the world. They waited until they were close to home (or thought he was going to lead them home) to make their move. I digress. My apologies. Yes, the Successor Wars was inevitable, to answer the original question. Thanks for letting me share my opinion on the matter.
Remember what Perdiccas did to the infantry at the beginning of it all, even as Alexander’s body was just laying there unattended and ignored while they fought over who got what. He lined them all up on the ground and let them be trampled to death by the war Elephants that were brought back from the India campaign. If that part of Alexander’s conquest was good for anything; it was that he got to bring back his new toys of destruction. You would think after seeing the Elephants run amok at the Battle of the Hydaspist, the men would want no part of them. Nope, just another way to kill each other off.