Macedonian Succession: A Game of Diadems David K Coblentz A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Carol Thomas, Chair Michael Williams Mary O’Neil Program Authorized to Offer Degree: History © Copyright 2019 David K Coblentz University of Washington Abstract Macedonian Succession: A Game of Diadems David K Coblentz Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Carol Thomas Department of History In this dissertation, I explore royal succession in Macedonia from the early Argead period until the fall of Macedonia to the Romans in 168 BCE. Particular attention is paid to the transition from the unstable, violent pattern of succession that dominated during and immediately after the Argead period to the peaceful pattern of succession that emerged in Antigonid Macedonia. The experience of the early Antigonid basileis is contrasted with that of the dynasties established by other Diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great. I suggest that game theory can provide a useful tool for understanding why violent succession patterns dominated in most Macedonian dynasties and also why a more peaceful pattern of power transfer was able to exist in the Antigonid dynasty. Ultimately, I use the surviving textual evidence from the early successor period to hypothesize a scenario that may have led to Antigonid dynastic stability. I also revisit and challenge several common modern hypotheses pertaining to Macedonian succession, including claims that Heracles, son of Barsine, was illegitimate and also that most of the Iranian brides married at Susa by prominent Macedonians were set aside by their husbands after Alexander’s death. TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Argead Macedonia ...................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Mythological Origins ..................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Historical Origins ........................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Argead Succession ........................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 2. Theories of Argead Succession ................................................................................... 42 2.1 Macedonian Kingship Debate ....................................................................................... 42 2.2 Game Theory: An Alternative Approach to Succession ................................................ 52 Chapter 3. The Great Succession Crisis ......................................................................................... 65 3.1 Note About Ancient Sources ......................................................................................... 65 3.2 Aftermath of Alexander’s Death ................................................................................... 68 Chapter 4. Legitimacy and Eastern Marriages ............................................................................ 110 4.1 Rejection of Heracles .................................................................................................. 110 4.2 Review of Heracles Sources ........................................................................................ 111 4.3 Legitimacy ................................................................................................................... 119 4.4 Susa Marriages: Diverse Outcomes ............................................................................ 123 4.5 Context: Macedonian Conquest of the East ............................................................... 124 v 4.6 The Carrot and the Stick ............................................................................................. 130 Chapter 5. succession among the diadochi ................................................................................ 141 5.1 The Not-Quite-Fall of the Antigonids .......................................................................... 142 5.2 The Fall of the Antipatrids........................................................................................... 146 5.3 The End of Single-Dynasty Legitimacy ........................................................................ 149 5.4 Fall of the Lysimachids ................................................................................................ 153 5.5 Regional Disaster ........................................................................................................ 166 5.6 Antigonid Recovery ..................................................................................................... 175 5.7 From Antigonus Gonatas to the Romans .................................................................... 179 Chapter 6. Antigonid Stability ..................................................................................................... 190 6.1 The Antigonid Engine of Dynastic Stability ................................................................. 191 6.2 A Theory of Stability .................................................................................................... 195 6.3 Return to Game Theory .............................................................................................. 201 Ancient Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 204 Modern Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 206 vi DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to Penelope and Sigmund, who have patiently waited while their father explored vanished worlds they sometimes struggled to see. vii 1 INTRODUCTION Macedonian princes faced a double-edged inheritance. Raised to be warrior horsemen, some young sons who avoided the endemic dangers of childbirth and disease likely died in childhood accidents or first experiences in war before their names had a chance to enter history. As Macedonian kings1 were polygamous – sometimes enthusiastically so, potential basileis who survived childhood typically had brothers, half and full, with whom they had to contend not just for power but often for survival. Commonly, potential kings also had uncles and cousins willing and ruthless enough to challenge the reigning family line for power. Sometimes, rivals had maternal ties to foreign rulers, who often showed themselves to be eager to enable their preferred pretenders to contend for the diadem. And, perhaps most of all, woe to any child- prince whose royal father died – as happened regularly – and left him alone to face these dangers with only an epitropos to protect him. In the nearly four-hundred-year history of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia, only once did a prince succeed his regent without first killing him. Even of those men – all Macedonian monarchs were men – who managed to survive the accidents of childhood and the machinations of their extended families to become basileis, most died violently and many of the rest died on campaign, their bodies worn out by stress, wounds, and disease. While the bloody and unstable nature of Macedonian succession is frequently remarked upon by modern historians, it is far from clear why members of the Macedonian royal clan 1 In this dissertation, I treat basileus as though it was the universally accepted title for Macedonian rulers. However, the evidence for the use of this specific title by hereditary Macedonian dynasts is weak in the Argead period. 2 invested such effort in murdering their closest relatives. Nor is it obvious what the Macedonians themselves, royal and non-royal alike, believed was supposed to happen when a king died – does the impressive royal body count mask some system of succession now lost to us that existed in law, or at least in the broader “custom” or “tradition” sense of dike? Would a Macedonian of the mid-fourth century BCE have been able to tell an observer who was the “rightful” heir of the basileus? Would a Macedonian of the early second century? Understanding Macedonian succession is historically important. Macedonia arguably left a deeper impression on world history than any other ancient Mediterranean state save Rome, and almost every aspect of this impression was influenced by the messy Argead succession process. In particular, the lives and deaths of Philip II and Alexander III were shaped by violent disputes over who would rule Macedonia. Though Philip ultimately became one of the more successful rulers in European history – transforming the meagre Macedonian basileia into an empire spanning Greece, the southern Balkan Peninsula, and parts of coastal Anatolia in a mere twenty years – it is easy to forget that Philip II was the third and youngest of his full brothers to reign. When he was still a boy, his eldest brother, Alexander II, was assassinated. The assassin, Ptolemy of Aloros, promptly married Philip’s mother, set himself up as regent for Philip’s next oldest brother Perdiccas, and packed Philip off as a hostage to Thebes. The teenage Perdiccas soon assassinated his murderous stepfather, but Perdiccas himself was slaughtered along with most of the Macedonian field army by Illyrian invaders only six years later. Given the chain of family tragedies