Following up on your answer to that personās question about Barsine, if Herakles was Alexanderās son, why did he ignore him? Maybe Iām wrong, but I havenāt gotten the impression from what Iāve learned about Alexander that heās indifferent to family, especially a baby thatās his.
Aaaaand this is precisely why Iām still not 100% sold that Herakles was his.
Herakles of Macedon, Alexander's "Forgotten?" Son
Although as Monica (DāAgostini) reminded me, the baby would have been only about four when ATG died, so at that age, it was quite traditional for children to remain with their motherāand heād sent Barsine to Pergamon, the Aeolian area where her family had a great deal of power and land. Typically, very young children were left out of historical accounts without a particular reason to mention them. One would think the birth of a healthy prince would count, but we hear about Alexanderās own birth only because notice of it coincided with two other pieces of good news for Philip (and because he became so important later). We donāt hear about Arrhidaiosās birth, much less any of the girls. Even the last is mentioned only because of how she died at Olympiasās hands.
Similarly, we know about Roxaneās pregnancy and stillbirth/miscarriage from the (very late) Metz Epitome. And we know Statiera died in childbirth from a tossed off comment in Plutarch and Justin. Arrian doesnāt mention either of these. Thatās caused some to dismiss them both as fabricated, but the problem is we wouldnāt expect the campaign/military-focused Arrian to talk about them. Curtius does at least talk about Statiera, but because she fits into his narrative of an (early) clement ATG, he doesnāt attribute her death to childbirth but exhaustionāin part because a pregnant Statiera would conflict with how heās presenting Alexander at that point in his narrative, suggesting that maybe he didnāt keep his hands off another manās wife.
Monica thinks Barsine stayed with Alexander all the way into Baktria and was probably sent to Pergamon either when she became pregnant or after the baby was born. Iād bet on the former, to get her the best medical care. Remember Barsineās age; she was older than Alexanderāpossibly approaching 40. Her daughter by Memnon was old enough to be married to Nearchos at Susaāwhich is why, after Alexanderās death, Nearchos brought Herakles forward as a candidate for king. The daughter may have been as young as 14/15, but that still makes her mother 35+ in 324. Barsine was married to Mentor before Memnon, although perhaps not for very long. Alexander probably didnāt want her trying to have a baby at the back of nowhere at her age, regardless of how many sheād already had. Artabazos āretiredā around that same time, so perhaps they traveled back west together. (Iād have to check whether he stayed at the court.)
But the histories donāt reveal any of this. Itās pieced together from the age of Herakles at his death and mention of Barsine being given to Alexander as a mistress after Issos, plus the later prominence of her familyāalthough that could have owed to long-standing guest-friendship between Artabazos and the Macedonian court. IOW, Barsine likely got her position as mistress because of her familyās earlier connection to the Argeads, and in turn, her position as mistress led to Artabazosās elevated treatment later.
So thatās one likely scenario. But there are a few others. Barsine may have been a cover for Alexanderās affair with Statiera. As we know, Statiera (probably) died in childbirth but the baby couldnāt have been Darius, and therefore almost had to be Alexanderās. After she died (right before Gaugamela), Alexander may have left all the women in Babylon. He certainly didnāt drag Dariusās daughters off to Baktria. If that were the case, timing-wise, Herakles couldnāt be Alexanderās.
Or it's possible Barsine was Alexanderās mistress (not just a cover) even as he also had an affair with Statiera. No expectations existed for Alexander to have only one mistress at a time. I find it unlikely that he took up with Statiera until after heād received at least the first letter from Darius, making it clear Darius wouldnāt negotiate for his family. So he may have started with Barsine, then took up with Statiera too, but also kept Barsine. Barsine's knowledge of Persia would have been invaluable to him. As for bringing Barsine to Baktria but not Dariusās daughters, they were much younger and perhaps less tough. Certainly they were less experienced politically, compared to the older, bilingual Barsine. So, I can see reasons for bringing her and not them.
The problem is simply that, when it comes to the women traveling with Alexanderās army, we are told so VERY little, from which we are then forced to infer so much. Ergo, disagreement easily ensues over how to interpret the titbits. Thatās a large part of why I was open to hearing Monicaās alternative theories. (Well, that and the fact itās not central to anything Iāve published, so any course-correction isnāt personalāha.)
The difficulty is just that, after sheās brought to Alexander following Issos, we hear nothing about Barsine again until her daughter is selected for Nearchosās wife. Then not again till Alexanderās death when Nearchos champions her son (and fails). Then not again until after Arrhidaios and Alexander IV are both dead, and Polyperchon tries to put Herakles forward but is bribed/talked out of it by Kassandros, so instead he kills both the 18-year-old Herakles and Barsine.
The problem is, we wouldnāt necessarily expect to hear about Barsine and Herakles, so that silence isnāt especially significant. Thatās why an argument from silence is problematic. Alexander may, in fact, have taken an interest in his son, but wanted to keep him away from court until he was older, especially if he wasnāt legitimate. Alexander was all-too-accustomed to the politics of polygamy and recognized that bringing him to Babylon could make him a target, especially if he wasnāt old enough yet to travel with his father (under his fatherās eye and protection). Alexander NOT taking a big interest in him would, ironically, act as protection.
Also, we donāt actually know where Barsine and Herakles were when Alexander died, except apparently not in Babylon. Alexander might have seen the boy earlier, however, once he was back in the west. Barsine could very well have met him to Ekbatana, as the Persian Royal Road goes from Sardis north until east of the Tigris, when it swings south towards Susa. But Persia had a LOT of roads, not just that one, and a road forked off the main trek to the capital of Ekbatana in Media. Easy travel. ATG was to have held a major festival there with athletic contests and all sorts of things, but everything got overshadowed by Hephaistionās death.
Of more import is why he was passed over at Alexanderās death. I actually find this to be the one REAL sticking point in arguments about his parentage, but it cuts both ways.
Given that nobody knew if Roxaneās baby would be male, and the mental infirmity of Arrhidaios (enough that Perdikkas was appointed regent, as for a child, of a man in his mid-30s!), not choosing Herakles presents a problem. Any Argead male could inherit. Some have pointed out the resistance to Roxaneās son to explain resistance to Herakles too; not only was he part Persian, but the son of a mere mistress, not wife. I find that a weak argument. Barsine was half Greek (her mother was Greek, sister of Mentor and Memnon of Rhodes), making Herakles less than half Persian. If anything, the son of the thoroughly Hellenized Barsine would have been preferable to the unborn child of ābarbarianā Roxane, legitimate or not.
If there were doubts about him AS Alexanderās son, however, that could explain why Nearchosās suggestion was ignored. Except if heād expected that to be a problem, it seems unlikely Nearchos would've put him forward. Perhaps years later, when Polyperchon tried, a cuckoo could have been slipped in, but in 323, that would've been harder. Also, the fact Kassandros paid off Polyperchon to kill Herakles, the last surviving Argeadādidnāt just claim he wasnāt Alexanderās sonāsuggests Kassandros believed he was Alexanderās son.
Yet it's still a puzzle to me why Herakles was passed over, a healthy male child, in favor of the mentally incapable brother and unborn baby. Perhaps if we had more of Diodorosās book 18, as well as Arrianās account of what happened immediately after (the book exists in only in a few tantalizing fragments)āor for that matter Nearchosās own account!āweād get a better idea of what transpired in Babylon that July.
