#argeads

Why Antipatros Couldn't Become King

Antipatros couldn’t become king—not while an Argead lived. So why remove him? Also, it could have been dangerous. See, Antipatros had held the role of regent at least back to Perdikkas III, and his father/grandfather Iolaos, held it under Perdikkas II. That suggests a sort of hereditary position. To simply “remove” him from it would require a damn good reason.

Just like, when ATG came to the throne, he couldn’t just “fire” the Bodyguards (Somatophylakes) who his father had appointed. He had to wait until either they died, or they were reappointed (by him) to a more prestigious position such as a satrapy (as happened with Balakros).

If regent was indeed an hereditary role in Macedon, by removing Antipatros, Alexander would’ve had to be VERY careful about who he put there, if not Kassandros (which he’d have done when iron floated). Supposedly, towards the end of his life, he did send Krateros back to Macedon to become regent, as he’d apparently been quite ill, so it was a “medical leave” from active military duty. Although as I’ve said elsewhere, I think his real job, at least at first, was to oversee the construction of a fleet in Cilicia, for Alexander to attack Carthage. They just didn’t want to advertise that too soon. He may (or may not) have been intended to then go with the army to Carthage.

Antipatros was, meanwhile, summoned to Babylon. Again, some have assumed he was being called on the carpet for over-reach back home. I’m not so sure. If Alexander was about to leave Persia for Arabia and/or Carthage, it’s possible that he wanted somebody Very Experienced to hold the fort in Babylon/Persia. It’s possible, again, that he intended to leave Hephaistion there, but that obviously fell through. Even so, the orders to Antipatros and the sending home of Krateros happened sometime in the summer of 2024—before Hephaistion died. So that would have reflected what he intended before Hephaistion’s death cast a spanner in his original plans.

In short, I think there are ways to interpret these orders that aren’t negative. It’s possible he was worried about Antipatros’ consolidation of power, but I kinda doubt it—because that assumes Antipatros could make a bid for the kingship. And he couldn’t. Especially back home in Macedon, the citizens wouldn’t have accepted a non-Argead while an Argead lived.

The mistake I think folks commonly make is forgetting the “must be an Argead” rule…or discounting it because that dissolved in the Successor Wars. But it didn’t dissolve until surviving Argead males were dead. Nobody called himself “king” until after, even when they were acting like kings, and may well have planned to kill the king(s) as soon as they could get away with it. AND note that the Successor kings were really keen to marry an Argead woman (Kleopatra or Thessalonike). Furthermore, I suspect the idea that they could become kings themselves developed over time. Initially, they just wanted to carve off a chunk of the empire to effectively rule over, as satrap.

That (religious) royal charisma of the Argead line MATTERED, and was very, very deeply embedded in the consciousness of Macedonian tradition.

So, theories that Parmenion/Philotas were plotting to kill Alexander to become king, or that Antipatros planned to do so…those arise from not understanding how Macedonian kingship worked. And, furthermore, are kinda modern. Sure, it’s possible they wanted to kill Alexander (specifically) because they thought he’d got out of control…but they’d need an Argead to replace him. (Which would have been either Arrhidaios or, earlier, Alexander of Lynkestis.)

Such a supposition also assumes Philotas was part of Dimnos’s plot n the first place, and I don’t believe he was. I think he was just an arrogant little shit who didn’t take seriously, and so failed to report, Dimnos’s plot, then fell victim to his own stupidity. 😉 As for the supposed plot of Antipatros (and Aristotle) to poison Alexander (much later), that’s a product of the Successor Wars. Negative propaganda about Antipatros by his enemies.

Alexander I and Perdikkas II

First, I thought I’d mention one of the cool things to come out of the recent ATG conference is a plan to produce an edited collection: Alexander I and the Making of Macedon. It’ll be a while, but if I can get us a publisher, I’ve got the contributors.

Also of note, Sabine Müller and Johannes Heinrichs are producing a monograph on Alexander I in English. She has a great one on Perdikkas but it’s in German, so I was very happy to hear this.

Finally, I've got a number of racked-up Asks. This answer will answer about three of them. I'll link it to the other questions. :-)

To the questions: it’s really hard to compare Alexander I and Perdikkas II simply because they were dealing with very different circumstances. Alexander I had Persian assistance holding the throne, while Perdikkas was tossed off his throne at least once.

The biggest difficulty is a source problem. ALL our info about these guys (outside archaeology) comes from Greeks, who were chiefly interested in them only when they intersected with the southern Greek world. There’s a fair bit about Alex I’s internal politicking that we just don’t know. What we call “Lower Macedon” probably only goes back a couple generations, despite the mythical king list. We find a MARKED change in burial practices c. 570 BCE, which is before Persians were mucking around up there. This suggests a change—or more likely consolidation—in the lowland Macedonian ruling elite, both west and a bit east of the Axios River.

If Alexander I took over c. 500-495 (coin above), and his father Amyntas (about whom we know nothing but a name) ruled for 20/30-ish years before, then Alexander’ grandfather (Alketas) or great-grandfather (Airopos) would have consolidated the area around Aigai. Yet ALL names before Amyntas I are essentially fictional. Certainly the “founder’s” name changed across time. It’s Perdikkas when we first hear of it in Herodotos, but may have shifted to Archelaos later (see Euripides’s play of that name). Later yet (under Philip), it seems to have become Karanos. If Bill Greenwalt’s theories are right. This is not a real person in any historical sense.

The problem with dating Alexander I is that we neither know for sure when he took the throne nor when he died. It was convenient for Alexander to blame his father for any concessions to the Persians, but he—not Amyntas—married his sister Gygaia to a Persian (Bubares, son of Magabazus and distantly royal).* More likely he was already on the throne in the 490s but may have been quite young. He seems to have used the Persian presence to further consolidate the (new) Macedonian kingdom—against Paionians and others—adding territory as far away as Amphipolis, at least temporarily, and thus, getting hold of both silver and gold mines to mint coins. The Echedoros River also held gold. All the gold in pre-Alexander Macedonia was pacer mining (panning), not from the gold mines of Mt. Pangaion. Yet gold, while present in the rivers, only became important in graves in Macedonia c. 570…it’s part of that startling shift in burials that we see.

We also don’t know exactly when Alexander I died and Perdikkas took over. He was still king at the end of the Persian Wars in 479/78, but dead by 450. His death may have been closer to 460, or even earlier. So his reign was probably more like 30-35 years. Perdikkas perhaps reigned longest of all—one reason he’s exceptional. I wonder if the Peloponnesian War itself may have contributed to his success: for all he had his challengers, if Macedon wanted to survive as an independent political entity, they needed to rally around him.

Yet he faced his share of opposition from other Argeads as well as the very powerful Upper Macedonian kingdoms of Lynkestis (Lynkis) and Elimeia, not to mention predatory Illyrians. That’s why Perdikkas sought an alliance with Brasidas of Sparta, but apparently couldn’t even control his own troops enough to keep them from deserting when facing Illyrians. That earned Brasidas’s wrath. As a result, Perdikkas (coin below) had to make nice with Athens.

That’s just one example of Perdikkas’s deal-making during the war. He had quite a job of diplomatic shuffling—no doubt learned from Daddy Alexander. Neither had a kingdom anywhere near strong enough to fend off Persia, or Athens and Sparta later. The fact Perdikkas didn’t end up a client king to either Sparta or Athens is a testament to his diplomatic skill.

Perdikkas’s eldest son Archelaos wasn’t the “illegitimate” son of a slave but of a lesser wife, which is why the younger (unnamed) son initially inherited. Archelaos quickly did away with him (plus an uncle and cousin), then proceeded to continue the modernizing work of his father and grandfather. Until he got run through in a hunting “accident.” After that, the kingdom dissolved into a mess.

The problem of a fast turn-over of rule owed to their inheritance system: any Argead had a claim on the throne. Kings also practiced royal polygamy, although two wives (at most three) seems to have been typical until Philip II. In some ways, it worked well, as it produced multiple heirs from which a strong king could emerge (by surviving).

That was also its problem: no clear method of succession, even if the sons of higher-status mothers apparently had a leg-up. Perdikkas himself was not Alexander’s eldest son. He had two older brothers and two younger ones. Yet either his mother was the most prominent or he showed the most promise (or both). Despite Archelaos’s age and apparent ability, he was initially passed over, although Plato (who tells the story) means to paint Archelaos poorly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t kill competing Argeads to take the throne. So had his father, and probably grandfather too (we just don’t hear about it).

Yet Archelaos’s unexpected death led to a continuing crisis until Amyntas III, Phil’s dad, took and kept the throne. He came from a collateral Argead line descended from Alexander I’s youngest son. The other lines killed each other off. For all Amyntas wasn’t a terribly prepossessing king, he managed not to die. But he, too, was run off his throne at least once, maybe twice. When he did die, it was in his bed of old age—not a common thing for Macedonian kings. His reign was the first tolerably long one after Archelaos, over 20 years.

By the time Philip came to the throne, there weren’t many Argeads left thanks to the catch-as-catch-can method of succession: Philip’s two older brothers were dead and all three of his half-brothers. It was down to just him and his brother Perdikkas III’s infant son: Amyntas.

This is the inevitable problem when lacking a clear succession. Yet a clear succession can create its own problems with incompetent heirs, who don’t always recognize they’re incompetent. The free-for-all gave a better shot at a strong king—ostensibly why it developed—but it also meant the kingdom ran out of “spares” after a couple generations. They went from more Argeads than you could shake a stick at following Alexander I’s death, down to just three at Philip’s death, and two at Alexander’s death** in a matter of 5-6 generations. Within those 5-6 generations, 12-14 kings reigned! And we have no idea how many brothers/cousins/uncles Alexander I had, and perhaps killed, before he became king. We hear only about the one sister.

Stability was not a hallmark of the Argead dynasty.

——

* The story of Alexander killing Persian emissaries is much later fictional propaganda. Didn’t happen.

I'm not sure we know of 10 kings. LOL Well, we could name 10, but not 10 who lasted any amount of time.

I'll give you the top 6, from a Macedonian view (which might surprise):

Alexander I (true founder/initial expansion)

Philip II (largest expansion)

Perdikkas II (kept Macedon independent in Pel War)

Alexander III (the Great)

Archelaos (continued modernizing)

Amyntas III (ended the succession madness after Archelaos's death)