DOCSLIB.ORG

Innovation Or Tradition? Succession to the Kingship in Temenid Macedonia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Innovation Or Tradition? Succession to the Kingship in Temenid Macedonia SELENE E. PSOMA Innovation or Tradition? Succession to the Kingship in Temenid Macedonia Ptolemy I and Seleukos I designated their successors and in this way Ptolemy II and Antiochos I were placed in a strong position to take power after the death of their fathers.1 Was this an innovation of these two Successors or a Temenid practice? This essay takes a fresh look at the evidence for succession in Temenid Macedonia and shows that this was also a practice under the Temenids.2 The epigraphic evidence One of the most important pieces of evidence about succession in the Argead kingdom is the treaty between Athens and Amyntas III (IG II2 102) which is dated to the late 370s. This treaty was made between the Athenians on the one hand 1. For the Ptolemies see K. Buraselis, “Kronprinzentum und Realpolitik. Bemerkungen zur Thronanwartschaft, Mitregentschaft und Thronfolge unter den ersten vier Ptolemäern”, in V.A. Troncoso (ed.), ∆ιάδοχος τῆς βασιλείας. La figura del sucesor en la realeza helenística (Gerión Anejos 9, Madrid 2005) 91-102. For the Seleucids see ibid., A. Lozano, “La figura del heredero el trono en la dinastía seleucida”, 71–89 with previous bibliography. Cf. E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C.) I. De la mort d’Alexandre aux avènements d’Antiochos III et de Philippe V (2nd ed., Annales de l’Est, Mémoire 30, Nancy 1979) 88. 2. The topic was recently discussed by F.J. Fernández Nieto, “La designación del sucesor en el antiguo reino de Macedonia”, in ∆ιάδοχος τῆς βασιλείας (see n. 1) 29-44. The conclusion is the following: “The successor’s figure tends to be established by means of the inheritance from fathers to sons. There are more possibilities for the first–born son of each marriage. It is impossible to establish if it was an original system that favours the brothers. The royal will is the rule that regulates successory order. Bearing in mind every antecedent, the Macedonian assembly consolidated very simple rules for the alternation of the kings. The potential candidates receive a special education. The candidate, who was called to be promoted, could be associated, with no title, into representative, administrative and governmental functions”. We need to note that the royal title basileus was not used by what we call the Macedonian kings before Alexander III: R.M. Errington, “Macedonian ‘Royal Style’ and its Historical Significance”, JHS 94 (1974) 20-37. For the epigraphic evidence see infra; for the boundary stone from Northern Chalcidice and Philip’s letter to the Katlestai see M.B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings. Vol. II: Epigraphic Appendix (Meletemata 22, Athens 1996) nos. 4 and 5 and IG X 2, 2, 1 with previous literature. For the coins see H.A. Troxell, Studies in the Macedonian coinage of Alexander the Great (New York 1997) 92-93. Τεκμήρια 11 (2012) 73-87 www.tekmeria.org SELENE E. PSOMA and king Amyntas and his son Alexander on the other.3 The names of the king and his son were written in larger letters at the very end of the treaty.4 These were the only Macedonians who were to swear the oaths to the treaty (l. 2: ὅρ[κος] π̣αρὰ Ἀμύ[ντο καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρο]).5 In l. 2 there is space only for the name of Alexander.6 The names of the two Athenian hipparchoi, each one followed by the first letters of its demotic, are to be found each one in ll. 18 and 19, preceded by their title in l. 17.7 The names of Amyntas and Alexander with their patronymics followed in ll. 20-21. This treaty clearly shows that during the last years of the reign of Amyntas III, Alexander was the only one of the king’s six sons associated in power by his father.8 There is another Athenian document that provides evidence about succes- sion in the Argead Kingdom. This is the treaty between Athens and Perdikkas II that is followed by an Athenian decree making peace with Arrabaios of Lynkos on the condition of reconciliation with Perdikkas II (IG I3 89).9 Those who take the oaths were the Macedonian king Perdikkas II together with the leading men 3. For this inscription see M.N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to 323 BC (Oxford 1946-1948) 90-92, no. 129. See also S. Koumanoudes, “Ἀττικὰ ψηφίσματα”, Ἀθήναιον 5 (1887) 164-191, esp. 171-172, no. 4; id., “Προσθήκη ἐπιγραφῶν”, Ἀθήναιον 5 (1887) 323-340, esp. 332-333. 4. The restoration of the names of Amyntas and Alexander at the end of lines 20-21 was made by Koumanoudes (see previous note). 5. Fernández Nieto (see n. 2) prefers Ἀμύ[ντο καὶ τῶν παίδων] on the evidence of IG I3 89, l. 38. He seems to ignore the last two lines of the text of IG II2 102. 6. D. Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: the Hellenistic Dynasties (London 1999) 7 with n. 29. Ogden does not seem to realize that the names of those who gave the oath, Athenian archons and the Macedonian kings, were written one by line in the last lines of the inscription. 7. There were two hipparchoi during the 4th cent. BC (Dem. 4.26). The assignment of five tribes to each hipparch is revealed by Xen. Eq. Mag. 3.3: see P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) 685 ad 61 iv with literary sources and discussion. 8. The treaty mentions that an embassy was sent to Amyntas. This seems normal. It was at Pella that the ambassadors heard that Alexander was associated in power. 9. For this document see P. Goukowsky, “Les maisons princières de Macédoine de Perdiccas II à Philippe II”, in P. Goukowsky and Cl. Brixhe (eds.), Hellènika Symmikta: Histoire, archéologie, epigraphie (Études d’archéologie classique 7, Nancy 1991) 43-44 with nn. 6 (p. 44) and 1 (p. 45). 74 SUCCESSION TO THE KINGSHIP IN TEMENID MACEDONIA of his kingdom and the kings of Upper Macedonia, Elimeia, Lynkos and Orestis.10 I believe that this treaty reflects at its very end the Macedonian list of succes- sion.11 All names are followed by their patronymics. The first person who gives the oath is the Macedonian king, Perdikkas, son of Alexander. After him, the oath was given by his brother Alketas and by the king’s son, Archelaos. There is room for two other names with patronymics after the name of Archelaos, and then we find the name of the king’s brother Menelaos followed by those of the two sons of Alketas: Agelaos and [. .]υρος.12 We may assume that the name missing after that of Archelaos, is Aeropos, a presumed son of Perdikkas ([Ἀέροπος Περδίκκο]: 15 letters).13 This restoration makes sense because the treaty was made with Perdikkas and the children of Perdikkas (l. 38: κ[α]ὶ τὸ[ς παῖδ]ας τὸ[ς Περδίκκο]). In this treaty, the king of Macedonia appears together with his two brothers, Alketas and Menelaos and also with his own sons and some of his nephews. The other brother of the king, Philip, was already dead in 429 BC. Philip’s son, Amyntas, had collaborated with Sitalkes and had therefore no place in the court of his uncle.14 The absence from the treaty of Amyntas, another brother of the king, can be explained by the fact that he spent his life as a private person.15 From this treaty we learn that the next person in the line of succession after Perdikkas II seems to be his brother, Alketas (l. 61). The name of the king’s son Archelaos followed the name of his uncle (l. 61). Thus, Archelaos appears second in the line of succession in a treaty that dates from the late 420s.16 However, at Perdikkas’ death, in 413 BC, it was not his brother Alketas but 10. On the dates proposed for this inscription see Ogden, Polygamy (see n. 6) 51 with n. 28 with previous bibliography. 11. Pace Ogden, Polygamy (see n. 6) 6-7 with no serious argument. See also W. Greenwalt, “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia”, Arethusa 22 (1989) 19-45, esp. 24: “… acknowledged political clout in descending order”. 12. For discussion about this name see S. Psoma, “Arepyros or A(u)re(lius) Pyros”, ZPE 180 (2012) 202-204. 13. This was proposed by N.G.L. Hammond in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia II 550–336 B.C. (Oxford 1978) 136. 14. For Goukowsky, “Maisons princières” (see n. 9) 47, Agerrhos son of Philip (l. 62) was most probably a son of Philip that was pardonned by Perdikkas II. 15. Porph. fr. 1 FHG III 691 (Syncell. 261D). Cf. Goukowsky, “Maisons princières” (see n. 9) 50. 16. See n. 10. This might be explained by the very young age of Archelaos: M.B. Hatzopoulos, “Succession and Regency in Classical Macedonia”, Ancient Macedonia IV (1986) 279-292, esp. 285. Contra Greenwalt, “Polygamy and Succession” (see n. 11) 24. 75 SELENE E. PSOMA his son Archelaos who succeeded him. Ten years after the treaty with Athens, Alketas was probably dead. One recalls also that Plato blamed Archelaos for the assassination of his uncle Alketas and his young half-brother.17 These Athenian inscriptions show that there might be a hierarchy in the clan of the Argeads and that this was followed in practice.18 Alexander II succeeded his father Amyntas.19 Perdikkas II was succeeded in 413 BC by his son Archelaos, second in line of succession in the lates 420s.20 We do not know the reason Alketas, first in line of succession of his brother, never ruled, but we may guess with the help of Plato, who reports that Archelaos had Alketas killed.21 With this epigraphic evidence in mind, we need to turn now to the evidence provided by literary sources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tomasz Grabowski Jagiellonian University, Kraków*
    ELECTRUM * Vol. 21 (2014): 21–41 doi: 10.4467/20800909EL.14.001.2778 www.ejournals.eu/electrum THE CULT OF THE PTOLEMIES IN THE AEGEAN IN THE 3RD CENTURY BC Tomasz Grabowski Jagiellonian University, Kraków* Abstract: The cult of the Ptolemies spread in various ways. Apart from the Lagids, the initiative came from poleis themselves; private cult was also very important. The ruler cult, both that organ- ised directly by the Ptolemaic authorities and that established by poleis, was tangibly benefi cial for the Ptolemaic foreign policy. The dynastic cult became one of the basic instruments of political activity in the region, alongside acts of euergetism. It seems that Ptolemy II played the biggest role in introducing the ruler cult as a foreign policy measure. He was probably responsible for bringing his father’s nickname Soter to prominence. He also played the decisive role in popularising the cult of Arsinoe II, emphasising her role as protector of sailors and guarantor of the monarchy’s prosperity and linking her to cults accentuating the warrior nature of female deities. Ptolemy II also used dynastic festivals as vehicles of dynastic propaganda and ideology and a means to popu- larise the cult. The ruler cult became one of the means of communication between the subordinate cities and the Ptolemies. It also turned out to be an important platform in contacts with the poleis which were loosely or not at all subjugated by the Lagids. The establishment of divine honours for the Ptolemies by a polis facilitated closer relations and created a friendly atmosphere and a certain emotional bond.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Achaemenid Persia on Fourth-Century and Early Hellenistic Greek Tyranny
    THE INFLUENCE OF ACHAEMENID PERSIA ON FOURTH-CENTURY AND EARLY HELLENISTIC GREEK TYRANNY Miles Lester-Pearson A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2015 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11826 This item is protected by original copyright The influence of Achaemenid Persia on fourth-century and early Hellenistic Greek tyranny Miles Lester-Pearson This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews Submitted February 2015 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Miles Lester-Pearson, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 88,000 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me, or principally by myself in collaboration with others as acknowledged, and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2010 and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in September 2011; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2010 and 2015. Date: Signature of Candidate: 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
    [Show full text]
  • D'olbia À Tanaïs
    D’Olbia à Tanaïs Christel Müller, ancienne élève de l’École Normale Supérieure et ancien membre de l’École Française d’Athènes, est Profes- seur d’histoire grecque à l’Uni- versité de Reims. Ausonius Éditions — Scripta Antiqua 28 — D’Olbia à Tanaïs Territoires et réseaux d’échanges dans la mer Noire septentrionale aux époques classique et hellénistique par Christel MÜLLER Diffusion De Boccard 11 rue de Médicis F - 75006 Paris — Bordeaux 2010 — AUSONIUS Maison de l’Archéologie F - 33607 Pessac cedex http://ausonius.u-bordeaux3.fr/EditionsAusonius Diffusion De Boccard 11 rue de Médicis 75006 Paris http://www.deboccard.com Directeur des Publications : Jérôme France Secrétaire des Publications : Stéphanie Vincent Graphisme de Couverture : Stéphanie Vincent © AUSONIUS 2010 ISSN : 1298-1990 ISBN : 978-2-35613-035-8 Achevé d’imprimer sur les presses de l’imprimerie BM Z.I. de Canéjan 14, rue Pierre Paul de Riquet F - 33610 Canéjan septembre 2010 Illustration de couverture : carte du Bosphore cimmérien (P. Dubrux, pas après 1833, d’après Tunkina 2002, fig. 45) et décret d’Olbia en l’honneur de deux Athéniens vers 340-330 a.C. (d’après I.Olb 5). Pour Graham et Arthur Sommaire Avant-propos 11 Introduction 15 I - Territoires et conquêtes dans le Pont Nord du dernier tiers du ve s. au début du iiie s. a.C. 23 Le Bosphore cimmérien 23 Des Arkhéanaktides aux Spartocides 24 L’intégration de Nymphaion 24 Les cités du Bosphore asiatique 25 La prise de Théodosia 26 La conquête de la Sindikè 31 Colonisation interne : fondations et refondations du Bosphore asiatique 34 Tanaïs, colonie bosporane ? 37 Ethnicité et partage du territoire : archontes des cités et rois des ethnè 39 Le Bosphore cimmérien : représentations et réalités d’une totalité territoriale 41 Marqueurs symboliques et physiques du territoire 43 Et les kourganes ? 46 Olbia pontique 48 Le nom de la cité 48 Situation territoriale d’Olbia à partir du ve s.
    [Show full text]
  • Theopompus's Philippica
    chapter five Theopompus’s Philippica heopompus of Chios (FGrHist 115) was widely renowned in antiq- T uity for the severity with which he condemned the moral faults of the characters peopling his Philippica. Few indeed escaped the scathing vigor of his pen. Despite his family’s exile from Chios, Theopompus seems to have had the necessary funds to carry out thorough research (TT 20 and 28,FF25, 26 and 181) and did not have to work for a living, but was able to devote himself wholly to his writing.1 Because he was in no need of either patronage or an income, he had the freedom to write whatever he pleased without risk of losing his livelihood by causing offense. It is per- haps for this reason that he was known in antiquity as “a lover of the truth” (φιλαληθης )(T28). We must now determine whether or not this epithet was justified in Theopompus’s use of the past in the Philippica. In addition to his numerous epideictic speeches, Theopompus wrote three known historical works: an epitome of Herodotus, a Hellenica, and a Philippica.2 It is likely the epitome of Herodotus was Theopompus’s earliest 1. A recent discussion of the (very vague and contradictory) evidence for Theopompus’s life can be found in Michael Attyah Flower, Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 11–25. 2. Suda, s.v. Θε π µπ ς ι ς ρ ητωρ (ϭ T 1). 143 144 lessons from the past historical work,3 but all that remains of it is an entry in the Suda stating it contained two books (T 1) and four attributed fragments from ancient lexica giving it as the authority for the use of specific words (FF 1–4), although the possibility exists that some other, unattributed fragments may belong to it also.
    [Show full text]
  • Download The
    THE CONCEPT OF SACRED WAR IN ANCIENT GREECE By FRANCES ANNE SKOCZYLAS B.A., McGill University, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Classics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1987 ® Frances Anne Skoczylas, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of CLASSICS The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date AUtt-UST 5r 1Q87 ii ABSTRACT This thesis will trace the origin and development of the term "Sacred War" in the corpus of extant Greek literature. This term has been commonly applied by modern scholars to four wars which took place in ancient Greece between- the sixth and fourth centuries B. C. The modern use of "the attribute "Sacred War" to refer to these four wars in particular raises two questions. First, did the ancient historians give all four of these wars the title "Sacred War?" And second, what justified the use of this title only for certain conflicts? In order to resolve the first of these questions, it is necessary to examine in what terms the ancient historians referred to these wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Reaching for Divinity the Role of Herakles in Relation to Dexiosis
    Reaching for Divinity The role of Herakles in relation to dexiosis Florien Plasschaert Utrecht University RMA ANCIENT, MEDIEVAL, AND RENAISSANCE STUDIES thesis under the supervision of dr. R. Strootman | prof. L.V. Rutgers Cover Photo: Dexiosis relief of Antiochos I of Kommagene with Herakles at Arsameia on the Nymphaion. Photograph by Stefano Caneva, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license. 1 Reaching for Divinity The role of Herakles in relation to dexiosis Florien Plasschaert Utrecht 2017 2 Acknowledgements The completion of this master thesis would not have been possible were not it for the advice, input and support of several individuals. First of all, I owe a lot of gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Rolf Strootman, whose lectures not only inspired the subject for this thesis, but whose door was always open in case I needed advice or felt the need to discuss complex topics. With his incredible amount of knowledge on the Hellenistic Period provided me with valuable insights, yet always encouraged me to follow my own view on things. Over the course of this study, there were several people along the way who helped immensely by providing information, even if it was not yet published. Firstly, Prof. Dr. Miguel John Versluys, who was kind enough to send his forthcoming book on Nemrud Dagh, an important contribution to the information on Antiochos I of Kommagene. Secondly, Prof. Dr. Panagiotis Iossif who even managed to send several articles in the nick of time to help my thesis. Lastly, the National Numismatic Collection department of the Nederlandse Bank, to whom I own gratitude for sending several scans of Hellenistic coins.
    [Show full text]
  • Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Ancient History and Archaeology)
    %- IRANIANS & GREEKS IN SOUTH RUSSIA BY M- ROSTOVTZEFF, Hon. D.Litt. PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MEMBER OF THE RUSSIAN ACAPEMY OF SCIENCE I i *&&* OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1922 Oxford University Press London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen Nets York Toronto Melbourne Cape T&tm Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai Humphrey Milford Publisher to the University PREFACE THIS book is not intended to compete with the valuable and learned book of Ellis H. Minns on the same subject. Our aims are different. Minns endeavoured to give a complete survey of the material illustrating the early history of South Russia and of the views expressed by both Russian and non-Russian scholars on the many and various questions suggested by the study of that material. I do not mean that Minns' book is a mere compendium. In dealing with the various problems of the history and archaeology of South Russia Minns went his own way ; his criticism is acute, his views independent. Nevertheless his main object was to give a survey as full and as complete as possible. And his attempt was success- ful. Minns* book will remain for decades the chief source of informa- tion about South Russia both for Russian and for non- Russian scholars. My own aim is different. In my short exposition I have tried to give a history of the South Russian lands in the prehistoric, the proto- historic, and the classic periods down to the epoch of the migrations. By history I mean not a repetition of the scanty evidence preserved by the classical writers and illustrated by the archaeological material but an attempt to define the part played by South Russia in the history of the world in general, and to emphasize the contributions of South Russia to the civilization of mankind.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult
    ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗ ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult Carlos Francis Robinson Bachelor of Arts (Hons. 1) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry Abstract Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult By the early Hellenistic period a trend was emerging in which royal women were deified as Aphrodite. In a unique innovation, Queen Arsinoë II of Egypt (c. 316 – 270 BC) was deified as the maritime Aphrodite, and was associated with the cult titles Euploia, Akraia, and Galenaië. It was the important study of Robert (1966) which identified that the poets Posidippus and Callimachus were honouring Arsinoë II as the maritime Aphrodite. This thesis examines how this new third-century BC cult of ‘Arsinoë Aphrodite’ adopted aspects of Greek cults of the maritime Aphrodite, creating a new derivative cult. The main historical sources for this cult are the epigrams of Posidippus and Callimachus, including a relatively new epigram (Posidippus AB 39) published in 2001. This thesis demonstrates that the new cult of Arsinoë Aphrodite utilised existing traditions, such as: Aphrodite’s role as patron of fleets, the practice of dedications to Aphrodite by admirals, the use of invocations before sailing, and the practice of marine dedications such as shells. In this way the Ptolemies incorporated existing religious traditions into a new form of ruler cult. This study is the first attempt to trace the direct relationship between Ptolemaic ruler cult and existing traditions of the maritime Aphrodite, and deepens our understanding of the strategies of ruler cult adopted in the early Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    Index Note : Geographical landmarks are listed under the proper name itself: for “Cape Sepias” or “Mt. Athos” see “Sepias” or “Athos.” When a people and a toponym share the same base, see under the toponym: for “Thessalians” see “Thessaly.” Romans are listed according to the nomen, i.e. C. Julius Caesar. With places or people mentioned once only, discretion has been used. Abdera 278 Aeaces II 110, 147 Abydus 222, 231 A egae 272–273 Acanthus 85, 207–208, 246 Aegina 101, 152, 157–158, 187–189, Acarnania 15, 189, 202, 204, 206, 251, 191, 200 347, 391, 393 Aegium 377, 389 Achaia 43, 54, 64 ; Peloponnesian Aegospotami 7, 220, 224, 228 Achaia, Achaian League 9–10, 12–13, Aemilius Paullus, L. 399, 404 54–56, 63, 70, 90, 250, 265, 283, 371, Aeolis 16–17, 55, 63, 145, 233 375–380, 388–390, 393, 397–399, 404, Aeschines 281, 285, 288 410 ; Phthiotic Achaia 16, 54, 279, Aeschylus 156, 163, 179 286 Aetoli Erxadieis 98–101 Achaian War 410 Aetolia, Aetolian League 12, 15, 70, Achaius 382–383, 385, 401 204, 250, 325, 329, 342, 347–348, Acilius Glabrio, M. 402 376, 378–380, 387, 390–391, 393, Acragas 119, COPYRIGHTED165, 259–261, 263, 266, 39MATERIAL6–397, 401–404 352–354, 358–359 Agariste 113, 117 Acrocorinth 377, 388–389 Agathocles (Lysimachus ’ son) 343, 345 ; Acrotatus 352, 355 (King of Sicily) 352–355, 358–359; Actium 410, 425 (King of Bactria) 413–414 Ada 297 Agelaus 391, 410 A History of Greece: 1300 to 30 BC, First Edition. Victor Parker.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult. Global and Local Perspectives?
    The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult Global and Local Perspectives? 1 Franca Landucci DOI – 10.7358/erga-2016-002-land AbsTRACT – Demetrius Poliorketes is considered by modern scholars the true founder of ruler cult. In particular the Athenians attributed him several divine honors between 307 and 290 BC. The ancient authors in general consider these honors in a negative perspec- tive, while offering words of appreciation about an ideal sovereignty intended as a glorious form of servitude and embodied in Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes’ son and heir. An analysis of the epigraphic evidences referring to this king leads to the conclusion that Antigonus Gonatas did not officially encourage the worship towards himself. KEYWORDS – Antigonids, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes, Hellenism, ruler cult. Antigonidi, Antigono Gonata, culto del sovrano, Demetrio Poliorcete, ellenismo. Modern scholars consider Demetrius Poliorketes the true founder of ruler cult due to the impressively vast literary tradition on the divine honours bestowed upon this historical figure, especially by Athens, between the late fourth and the early third century BC 2. As evidenced also in modern bib- liography, these honours seem to climax in the celebration of Poliorketes as deus praesens in the well-known ithyphallus dedicated to him by the Athenians around 290 3. Documentation is however pervaded by a tone that is strongly hostile to the granting of such honours. Furthermore, despite the fact that it has been handed down to us through Roman Imperial writers like Diodorus, Plutarch and Athenaeus, the tradition reflects a tendency contemporary to the age of the Diadochi, since these same authors refer, often explicitly, to a 1 All dates are BC, unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Successors: Alexander's Legacy
    The Successors: Alexander’s Legacy November 20-22, 2015 Committee Background Guide The Successors: Alexander’s Legacy 1 Table of Contents Committee Director Welcome Letter ...........................................................................................2 Summons to the Babylon Council ................................................................................................3 The History of Macedon and Alexander ......................................................................................4 The Rise of Macedon and the Reign of Philip II ..........................................................................4 The Persian Empire ......................................................................................................................5 The Wars of Alexander ................................................................................................................5 Alexander’s Plans and Death .......................................................................................................7 Key Topics ......................................................................................................................................8 Succession of the Throne .............................................................................................................8 Partition of the Satrapies ............................................................................................................10 Continuity and Governance ........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Successors
    Perdiccas, 323-320 Antigonus (western Asia Minor) 288-285 Antipater (Macedonia) 301, after Ipsus Lysimachus (Anatolia, Thrace) Archon (Babylon) Lysimachus (Anatolia, Thrace) Ptolemy (Egypt) Asander (Caria) Ptolemy (Egypt) Seleucus (Babylonia, N. Syria) Persia to Alexander the Great Atropates (northern Media) 315-311 Alexander’s Seleucus (Babylonia, N. Syria) Eumenes (Cappadocia, Pontus) vs. 318-316 Cassander Cassander (Macedonia) Laomedon (Syria) Lysimachus Daniel 11:1-4 Antigonus Demetrius (Cyprus, Tyre, Demetrius (Macedonia, Cyprus, Leonnatus (Phrygia) Ptolemy Successors Cassander Sidon, Agaean islands) Tyre, Sidon, Agaean islands) Lysimachus (Thrace) Peithon Seleucus Menander (Lydia) Ptolemy Bythinia Bythinia Olympias (Epirus) vs. 332-260 BC Seleucus Epirus Epirus “And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise Peithon (southern Media) Antigonus Greece Greece Philippus (Bactria) vs. Aristodemus Heraclean kingdom Heraclean kingdom Ptolemy (Egypt) Demetrius in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as Eumenes Paeonia Paeonia Stasanor (Aria) Nearchus Olympias Pontus Pontus and others . Peithon Polyperchon Rhodes Rhodes he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece. And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases.” (Dan 11:2-3) 320 330310 300 290 280 270 260 250 Antipater, 320-319 Alcetas and Attalus (Pisidia ) Antigenes (Susiana) Antigonus (army in Asia) Arrhidaeus (Phrygia) Cassander
    [Show full text]