Antigonus the One-Eyed

Greatest of the Successors

Jeff Champion

• Verlag: Pen & Sword Military
• Jahr: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781473840898
• Thema: History
• Thema: Military & Maritime History

The author of Pyrrhus of Epirus "tells the exciting story of one of those competing to succeed Alexander the Great... Recommended." —Firetrench Plutarch described Antigonus the One Eyed (382-301 BC) as "the oldest and greatest of Alexander's successors." Antigonus loyally served both Philip II and Alexander the Great as they converted his native Macedonia into an empire stretching from India to Greece. After Alexander's death, Antigonus, then governor of the obscure province of Phrygia, seemed one of the least likely of his commanders to seize the dead king's inheritance. Yet within eight years of the king's passing, through a combination of military skill and political shrewdness, he had conquered the Asian portion of the empire. Antigonus' success caused those who controlled the European and Egyptian parts of the empire to unite against him. For another fourteen years he would wage war against a coalition of the other Successors, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Cassander. In 301 he would meet defeat and death in the Battle of Ipsus. The ancient writers saw Antigonus' life as a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris and vaulting ambition. Despite his apparent defeat, his descendants would continue to rule as kings and create a dynasty that would rule Macedonia for over a century. Jeff Champion narrates the career of this titanic figure with the focus squarely on the military aspects. "It is far time that we have a biography of one of the greatest men of Hellenistic society... His rise from this backwater to almost becoming the king of the entire Macedonian empire is detailed by the author."— A Wargamers Needful Things.

Chapter 1

The Macedonian Homeland

The Macedonians had perpetual contests with the Thracians and Illyrians, and, being hardened by their arms, as it were by daily exercise, they struck terror into their neighbours by the splendour of their reputation for war.

Justin 7.2.

In common with many ancient peoples, the history of the Macedonians is shrouded in myth and must be reconstructed from the testimony of much later authors and the limited archaeological evidence. From about 800 the area which later became Macedonia was dominated by the Illyrians who expanded their domain at the expense of both the Thracians and Paeonians. The Illyrians were a powerful people, inhabiting an area stretching across the northern boundaries of Greece and further beyond the Adriatic Sea into southern Italy. They were feared by the Greeks for their warlike nature, piracy and slave trading.

The power of the Illyrians in Macedonia was destroyed in the seventh century by the Cimmerians, a tribe originating in southern Russia, who allied themselves with some of the Thracian tribes and raided deep into Macedonia and Epirus. These campaigns shattered the power of the Illyrians in Macedonia. Three people took advantage of their weakness: the Thracians, the Paeonians and the Macedones.

The Macedones are first mentioned by Hesiod (F3) who names Magnes and Macedon as sons of the god Zeus and the nymph Thyia. They are located in the area of Pierian Mountains and Mount Olympus, the legendary home of the Greek gods. Homer (Illiad, 2.4) claims, however that the Magnetes, the Macedonians, came in forty ships to Troy from the region of Mount Pelion, somewhat further south in Thessaly. Hammond, in his influential history of Macedonia, proposes that prior to the Trojan War the Macedones were driven out of the Pierian Mountains by the Thracians. He concludes ‘that the homeland of the Macedones from the latter part of the Bronze Age onwards was the northern part of the Olympus massif’.¹

The ancient Greeks of the classical period believed that the kingdom of Macedonia was founded in the mid-seventh century. According to the tradition, recorded by the fifth century historians Herodotus and Thucydides, the Macedonian kingdom was founded by the aristocratic Temenid family from Argos, who claimed descent for the legendary hero Hercules. The Temenids drove out the Illyrians and created a dynasty of Macedonian kings known as the Argeads. This dynasty would rule the kingdom for over three centuries until the murder of the last Argead king, Alexander the Great’s son, Alexander IV, sometime between 311 and 309.

Herodotus records that the first king of the Macedonians was Perdiccas. He and his two older brothers had fled Argos to seek refuge with the Illyrians, where they became farm labourers for the king. After being cheated of their wages, the three fled once again and settled at Mount Bermion, near the site of the later city of Beroea. ‘Having taken possession of that region, they made this their starting-point, and proceeded to subdue also the rest of Macedonia.’² Thucydides varies from Herodotus’ account by claiming that Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, began the conquest, first capturing Pieria and then all lowland regions of Macedonia to the Strymon River. This region was known as Lower Macedonia. Thucydides also describes a highland region further inland known as Upper Macedonia occupied by ‘the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood, and allies and dependants of their kindred, still have their own separate governments.’³ Control of Upper Macedonia by the king was often tenuous at best. The archaeological and other evidence indicates that this process of conquest was gradual and uneven. Upper Macedonia in particular was under constant threat from the incursions of the Illyrians.

Macedonia was an extremely well resourced area of Greece. Timber was abundant and eagerly sought by shipbuilding powers, especially Athens. Lower Macedonia was well watered and very fertile, being one of the few regions in Greece that produced and exported a surplus of grain. There were gold and silver deposits as well as base metals. All of this, in theory, belonged to the king but was often poorly exploited due to the insecurity of the realm and a lack of infrastructure. These resources also made it an attractive target to outside powers.

Perhaps one of the more contentious problems with ancient Macedonian history is whether the Macedonians were in fact Greeks. The narrow meaning of this was whether they spoke Greek, or instead were barbarians who spoke baa baa like sheep. The meaning could, however, be expanded to include the sharing of the Greek religion and cultural values. Herodotus introduces this question when he describes the reaction to entry of the Macedonian king Alexander I into the Olympic Games, an event open only to Greeks. Some of Alexander’s ‘fellow competitors who were to run against him tried to exclude him, saying that the contest was not for Barbarians to contend in but for Hellenes: since however Alexander proved that he was of Argos, he was judged to be a Hellene, and when he entered the contest of the foot-race his lot came out with that of the first.’⁴ Herodotus uses this incident to claim that the Argead kings were Greeks, but did not state explicitly whether this extended to all Macedonians. This doubt as to the true origin of the ancient Macedonians, whether they spoke Greek and were a part of the wider Greek community, has continued for over two and a half millennia.

There are a few passages in the ancient sources that infer that there may have been a separate Macedonian language. One example comes from a fragment of Arrian, where the Greek general Eumenes, ‘sent Xennias (a man of Macedonian speech)’⁵ to address a group of defeated Macedonian soldiers. The evidence against a separate Macedonian language are that most recorded Macedonian personal names, the names of the months, the names of the towns and numerous inscriptions are all in Greek. Nor has a written form of a distinct Macedonian language survived. The most likely conclusion is that the Macedonians spoke a local dialect of Greek.⁶ Perhaps the most compelling evidence is the so-called “Pella Curse Tablet”, dating to about 375–350. It contains a love spell written in a dialect of Doric Greek and perhaps best records the speech of the common Macedonians at this time.⁷

Much of the doubt about the Hellenism of the Macedonians may have come from the southern Greeks’ disdain of the Macedonians’ archaic political institutions and perceived lack of culture. Macedonia was a hierarchical society, ruled by a king and dominated by a land owning aristocracy. The primary role of a Macedonian king was to be leader of his nation in war. He would be judged by his success in defending and expanding his kingdom, and by his personal courage in battle. The king’s other powers were wide. The king was chief law giver, judge and head priest. The king had considerable income, he owned huge estates in his own name and controlled the state’s natural resources. He was expected, however, to use some of his wealth, and the spoils of war, to enrich his followers and subjects by gifts and donations. Kings were expected to be overtly generous to their followers. This expectation was expounded by Antigonus himself when: ‘one of his friends, supposed to be a cook’s son, advised him to moderate his gifts and expenses. Your words, said he, Aristodemus, smell of the apron.’⁸

Immediately below the king were the nobility. The power of these men was based on the considerable wealth produced by their landed estates. It is claimed that during Philip II’s reign, the 800 richest Macedonian nobles owned as much land as the 10,000 wealthiest Greeks.⁹ They were expected to serve the king and provide him with cavalry in time of war. The most trusted or powerful of these served the king as his Companions (hetairoi),¹⁰ his inner circle of advisors. The king might consult his Companions before taking action but the final decision was his alone, in a manner not dissimilar to that described in the Homeric Iliad. There also existed an assembly of all male Macedonian citizens but this appears to have had little real power and was summoned by the king to express its support or opposition of his policies by shouting. It was mostly summoned after the death of a king to show assent to the succession of the new king. In reality a strong king would have had little real check on his power. Whereas a weak king might find it hard to oppose strong opposition among the Companions as they might unite to rebel in favour of one his relatives.

In effect the king was the state, issuing decrees and concluding treaties in his own name. Ultimately the only avenues of appeal or dissent available to other members of Macedonian society were riot, rebellion, conspiracy and/ or assassination. Of the last eleven Argead kings eight were assassinated or executed, and another died in battle. In all these cases the question of the continued existence of the monarchy and the dynasty was never in dispute. The conflict being rather which member of the royal family should rightfully exercise the traditional powers of the king. The monarchal system was deeply rooted within Macedonian society and as an institution was never questioned, even in times of extreme crisis. This tradition of kingship would long survive the fall of the Argead dynasty.

Ancient Greek society was ferociously competitive, especially among the aristocracy and leading citizens. They competed to win fame and a reputation that would survive beyond the grave. Due to its history and situation Macedonia was a martial society and the main ways to gain a reputation were to display courage and skill in battle, or the closely related pastimes of hunting and sport. This was a way of life shared with the aristocracies of the other Greek states, even the democracies. Failure, however, was on open display in Macedonia. Men who had not killed a man in battle had to wear a halter instead of a belt. Those who had not slain a wild boar without a net were forced to stand at dinner rather than recline in the normal manner. Another method to attain a reputation was to speak well in the council of the kings or in the assemblies of the people. In most Greek states one had to impress and win over one’s fellow citizens, whereas in a monarchy everything depended on winning the eye of the king.

For many Greeks this disparity meant that those ruled by kings were not truly freemen but slaves. This snobbery extended to the Macedonians’ way of life. Most lived in the countryside and worked their own lands. The ideal of most Greeks was to live in cities, participate in politics, sport and cultural pursuits, while slaves or servants did the work. Those Greeks who came to the Macedonian court were appalled by the behaviour of the Macedonians, their drunkenness (they drunk their wine straight unlike the civilized Greeks who diluted it with water), the coarseness of their manners, their lewdness and the deference they paid to the king. The Athenian politician Demosthenes described the court of Philip II:

Any fairly decent or honest man, who cannot stomach the licentiousness of his daily life, the drunkenness and the lewd dancing, is pushed aside as of no account. All the rest about his court, he said, are robbers and toadies, men capable of getting drunk and performing such dances as I hesitate to name to you here … low comedians, men who compose ribald songs to raise a laugh against their boon companions – these are the men he welcomes and loves to have about him.¹¹

It is perhaps for these reasons that Demosthenes told the Athenian assembly that they should have ‘no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honour, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia’¹² Such accusations need not, however, be taken literally. Demosthenes was a fierce political opponent of Philip and truthfulness was not always an important factor in addressing the assembly. Some scholars argue that the accusations of Macedonian barbarism are mainly a result of third century Athenian hostility.¹³ Not all Athenians viewed Philip this way, the writer Isocrates, an opponent of Demosthenes, sent an open letter (To Philip) imploring him to be the champion of the Greeks and to free them from the threat of barbarian domination. Overall it would appear that accusations of Macedonian barbarism made by other Greeks were the result of social snobbery or political expediency.

Periods of stability in Macedonian history were rare. Unpopular kings were often assassinated, hunting “accidents” being a popular method. All too often the death of one king was followed by a bout of civil war with rival claimants competing for the throne. In the succession of kings primogeniture was usual but not always practiced. Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, described the reality. When asked by one of his three sons, who should inherit the throne, he replied, ‘to the one of you who keeps his sword the sharpest.’¹⁴ This was the famous curse of Oedipus, the legendary king of Thebes, that thrones should be won by the sword and not inherited by order of birth. The Macedonians seem to have shared this curse. Foreign powers often took advantage of these conflicts by supporting one of rival claimants in return for territorial or trading concessions.

One king who endeavoured to change Macedonian society was Archelaus who ruled from 413 to 399. He attempted to strengthen Macedonia, and thereby his own rule, through a number of reforms. He did much to improve the economy, introduced coinage, built infrastructure and initiated a lucrative timber trade with Athens. Despite this, Archelaus is characterized by Plato (Gorgias) not as a king but as the epitome of a tyrant whose ‘incurably corrupt soul dooms him to suffer unending punishment in Hades, an eternal object lesson for others’. According to Plato, Archelaus was the bastard son of a slave woman, who seized power by murdering, in true Macedonian manner, his uncle, nephew and half brother. These crimes destined him to be murdered in turn as a result of divine justice. Archelaus was eventually killed by one of his young male attendants who he had sexually abused. The more practical Thucydides described how Archelaus, ‘made straight roads and in various ways improved the country. In his force of cavalry and infantry and in his military resources generally he surpassed all the eight kings who preceded him.’¹⁵ Archelaus also drew the court closer to the culture of the southern Greeks, inviting artists and poets to visit, including the famous Athenian playwright Euripides.

Archelaus’ murder lead to another six years of chaos. In 393 Amyntas III ascended the throne. After less than a year of rule he was deposed by an Illyrian invasion. Amyntas only recovered his throne with the aid of the Thessalians and Olynthus. The Olynthians had demanded control of some of the Macedonian timber revenues for their aid and after the war refused to give them back. These revenues strengthened Olynthus and Amyntas was not strong enough to confront them directly. Instead he shrewdly used the rivalry of the Greek states to his own advantage. Olynthus was backed by Thebes and Athens, so Amyntas sought help from their enemy, Sparta. Despite Sparta’s military reputation, the Olynthians twice defeated the allied forces of Amyntas and Sparta.

This was the world into which both Philip and Antigonus were born. Macedonia was once again in chaos. The Macedonians were a weak and divided people, preyed upon by stronger powers, prone to civil wars and forced to beg military assistance from foreign powers, who would inevitably demand a price for their aid. The two future kings would turn this world on its head. Forty five years later, Macedonia would be the superpower of the Greek world.

In 379 the Spartans and their Macedonian allies would finally defeat the Olynthians. Amyntas astutely broke with Sparta and allied with Athens just before Spartan power was destroyed by the Thebans at the Battle of Leuctra in 371. This apparent piece of fine judgment did not, however, bring the expected rewards. Both Athens and Thebes continued to expand their influ...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Front Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Chapter 1 The Macedonian Homeland
• Chapter 2 Under Alexander
• Chapter 3 The Rise of Antigonus
• Chapter 4 The Destruction of the Perdiccans
• Chapter 5 The Outbreak of the Second Successor War
• Chapter 6 The March East
• Chapter 7 The Battle of Paraetaceni
• Chapter 8 The Battle of Gabene
• Chapter 9 The Causes of the Third Successor War
• Chapter 10 The Outbreak of the Third Successor War
• Chapter 11 The Third Successor War Continues (314–313)
• Chapter 12 The Battle of Gaza
• Chapter 13 The Peace of 311 and the End of the Third Successor War
• Chapter 14 Antigonus’ Campaign against Seleucus
• Chapter 15 The Liberation of Athens
• Chapter 16 The Conquest of Cyprus and the Kingship
• Chapter 17 The Invasion of Egypt
• Chapter 18 The Siege of Rhodes: The Naval Assault
• Chapter 19 The Siege of Rhodes: The Land Assault
• Chapter 20 The Liberation of Greece
• Chapter 21 The Battle of Ipsus
• Chapter 22 Conclusion and Epilogue
• Appendix 1 The Chronology of the Successors
• Appendix 2 The Literary Sources
• Appendix 3 Antigonus and the Argeads
• Appendix 4 The Cost of War
• Appendix 5 Antigonus’ Policy of “Freedom” for the Greeks
• Notes
• Bibliography