Following up on your answer to that personâs question about Barsine, if Herakles was Alexanderâs son, why did he ignore him? Maybe Iâm wrong, but I havenât gotten the impression from what Iâve learned about Alexander that heâs indifferent to family, especially a baby thatâs his.
Aaaaand this is precisely why Iâm still not 100% sold that Herakles was his.
Herakles of Macedon, Alexander's "Forgotten?" Son
Although as Monica (DâAgostini) 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 motherâand heâd 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 Alexanderâs 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 donât hear about Arrhidaiosâs birth, much less any of the girls. Even the last is mentioned only because of how she died at Olympiasâs hands.
Similarly, we know about Roxaneâs 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 doesnât mention either of these. Thatâs caused some to dismiss them both as fabricated, but the problem is we wouldnât 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 doesnât attribute her death to childbirth but exhaustionâin part because a pregnant Statiera would conflict with how heâs presenting Alexander at that point in his narrative, suggesting that maybe he didnât keep his hands off another manâs 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. Iâd bet on the former, to get her the best medical care. Remember Barsineâs age; she was older than Alexanderâpossibly approaching 40. Her daughter by Memnon was old enough to be married to Nearchos at Susaâwhich is why, after Alexanderâs 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 didnât want her trying to have a baby at the back of nowhere at her age, regardless of how many sheâd already had. Artabazos âretiredâ around that same time, so perhaps they traveled back west together. (Iâd have to check whether he stayed at the court.)
But the histories donât reveal any of this. Itâs 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 familyâalthough 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 familyâs earlier connection to the Argeads, and in turn, her position as mistress led to Artabazosâs elevated treatment later.
So thatâs one likely scenario. But there are a few others. Barsine may have been a cover for Alexanderâs affair with Statiera. As we know, Statiera (probably) died in childbirth but the baby couldnât have been Darius, and therefore almost had to be Alexanderâs. After she died (right before Gaugamela), Alexander may have left all the women in Babylon. He certainly didnât drag Dariusâs daughters off to Baktria. If that were the case, timing-wise, Herakles couldnât be Alexanderâs.
Or it's possible Barsine was Alexanderâs 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 heâd received at least the first letter from Darius, making it clear Darius wouldnât 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 Dariusâs 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 Alexanderâs 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. Thatâs a large part of why I was open to hearing Monicaâs alternative theories. (Well, that and the fact itâs not central to anything Iâve published, so any course-correction isnât personalâha.)
The difficulty is just that, after sheâs brought to Alexander following Issos, we hear nothing about Barsine again until her daughter is selected for Nearchosâs wife. Then not again till Alexanderâs 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 wouldnât necessarily expect to hear about Barsine and Herakles, so that silence isnât especially significant. Thatâs 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 wasnât 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 wasnât old enough yet to travel with his father (under his fatherâs eye and protection). Alexander NOT taking a big interest in him would, ironically, act as protection.
Also, we donât 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 Hephaistionâs death.
Of more import is why he was passed over at Alexanderâs 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 Roxaneâs 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 Roxaneâs 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 âbarbarianâ Roxane, legitimate or not.
If there were doubts about him AS Alexanderâs son, however, that could explain why Nearchosâs suggestion was ignored. Except if heâd 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 Argeadâdidnât just claim he wasnât Alexanderâs sonâsuggests Kassandros believed he was Alexanderâs 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 Diodorosâs book 18, as well as Arrianâs account of what happened immediately after (the book exists in only in a few tantalizing fragments)âor for that matter Nearchosâs own account!âweâd get a better idea of what transpired in Babylon that July.
