The Contest for Macedon: A Study on the Conflict Between Cassander and Polyperchon (319 – 308 B.C.). Evan Pitt B.A. (Hons. I). Grad. Dip. This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Humanities University of Tasmania October 2016 Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does this thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. Evan Pitt 27/10/2016 Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Evan Pitt 27/10/2016 ii Acknowledgements A doctoral dissertation is never completed alone, and I am forever grateful to my supervisor, mentor and friend, Dr Graeme Miles, who has unfailingly encouraged and supported me over the many years. I am also thankful to all members of staff at the University of Tasmania; especially to the members of the Classics Department, Dr Jonathan Wallis for putting up with my constant stream of questions with kindness and good grace and Dr Jayne Knight for her encouragement and support during the final stages of my candidature. The concept of this thesis was from my honours project in 2011. Dr Lara O’Sullivan from the University of Western Australia identified the potential for further academic investigation in this area; I sincerely thank her for the helpful comments and hope this work goes some way to fulfil the potential she saw. Very special thanks must also be given to Associate Professor Pat Wheatley from the University of Otago, who has always happily answered any queries I had regarding many aspects of the Hellenistic World over the years. I am now lucky enough to call him both friend and mentor. To the Tasmanian Friends of the Australian Archaeological Institute in Athens, who facilitated my travel to Athens and my accommodation there for an extended period of time in 2013 as part of the Athens Scholarship - thank you; the chance to visit the locations associated with Cassander and Polyperchon has invaluably improved the quality of my research. The list of friends who have seen me through my candidature is far too long to mention all, but special thanks must go to Bill, Chris, Hannah, Imogen, Isobel, Katrina, Matt and all my fellow post-graduates colleagues across Australasia, with whom I have had the pleasure of sharing this journey. To my parents, Graeme and Jill, who supported all of my academic pursuits and inspired my love of learning from the very beginning. Without their support, this thesis would never have been possible. Finally, I have the pleasure of acknowledging my partner, Erika, whose patience and support was always unwavering, and who makes me a better person every day. iii Abstract In 319 B.C, the regent of Macedon and guardian of the kings, Antipater, died. Prior to his death, the experienced politician and general appointed one Polyperchon, the son of Simmias as his successor, with his own son Cassander as Polyperchon’s subordinate. Cassander did not accept his father’s decision and the ensuing conflict between him and Polyperchon would rage across Greece and the Macedonian homeland for over a decade resulting in the destruction of the royal Argead family as well as paving the way for the installation of the Antipatrid Dynasty. While previous investigations have been devoted to the conflict, primarily focussing on Cassander (Fortina, 1965; Adams, 1975; Landucci Gattinoni, 2003), or to a lesser extent Polyperchon (Carney, 2014), there has not previously been a substantial study devoted to the warring pair in apposition to each other. Because of the disproportionate amount of academic study based on Cassander, a distorted view of both Polyperchon and Cassander has emerged in perception of both men. In response to this, it is important to consider a re- evaluation of Polyperchon’s career and standing within the fragmenting Macedonian Empire. In order to gain a greater understanding of events, this study investigates the way in which each man approached the conflict in Greece and Macedon, how they engaged with both the royal family and the Greek cities and how the conflict between them impacted on the political and military turmoil present in the fragmenting Macedonian Empire during the emergence of the Early Hellenistic World. iv Formal Aspects on the Presentation of this Thesis Editions of ancient material used All references to primary sources are, for the most part, taken from the Loeb Classical Library with further reference to the Teubner and Oxford Classical texts for textual matters. Where a different translation or interpretation of a particular reading has been deemed appropriate, it has been discussed. If an alternate text or manuscript divergence has been used, it has been noted in the corresponding citation. A note of orthography and nomenclature Research based on both Greek and Latin sources can lead to problems regarding the orthography. For the most part, the commonly used English spelling of names has been used, being based on the Latinised form of the name. However, due to the existence of multiple men with the same name, who are operating within the same geographical area, the names are delineated into both the Latinised form as well as the Greek transliteration, with each being assigned to separate individuals version for purpose of clarity. The role of the appendix The appendix of this thesis contained and reproduction and accompanying translation to Antigonus’ Letter to Scepsis, written after the Peace of the Dynasts in 311/310 and first published by Munro in the late nineteenth century.1 Other reproductions of this text, accompanied by translations, have become available following Munro’s initial discovery.2 The appendix presents my own choice among these possible readings. As these differences are significant to my argument, it is necessary to present my version of the text in this thesis. 1 Munro, JRS. 19. (1899). pp. 330–340. 2 See Appendix 1. pp. 297-300. v Abbreviations Journal titles are abbreviated as in L’Année philologique and references to ancient source evidence follow standard academic conventions as set out by LSJ and the OLD. vi Table of Contents Page Nos Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………….………….1 Chapter 2: Methodology………………………………………………………………..…………17 2.1 Source critique………………………………………………………………………...……..….18 2.1.1 Hieronymus of Cardia…………………...………………………………………………..…..18 2.1.2 Duris of Samos…………………………………………………………………………..……….20 2.1.3 Cleitarchus of Alexandria…………………………………………………………..………..22 2.1.4 Diodorus Siculus……………………………………………………………………..………….24 2.1.5 Quintus Curtius Rufus………………………………………………………………..……….27 2.1.6 Plutarch…………………………………………………………………………..…………………29 2.1.7 Arrian………………………………………………………………….…….……………………….33 2.1.8 Justin…………………………………………………………….……………………...……………36 2.2 Chronology……………………………………………………………….………………………..38 2.3 Gaps in Knowledge and its Treatment…………………………………………………47 Chapter 3: The Relationship between Antipater and Alexander………...……51 Chapter 4: Cassander in Babylon…………………………………………………………..…80 Chapter 5: Antipater’s Choice of Successor……………………………………………106 5.1 Cassander……………………………………………………………….………………………..109 5.2 Polyperchon……………………………………………………………………………………..125 5.3 The Successor of Antipater………………………………………………………………..142 Chapter 6: ‘Cry Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war: 319-318………………..150 6.1 Cassander 319………………………………………………………………………………….152 6.2 Polyperchon 319………………………………………………………………………………160 6.3 The Second Diadoch War…………………………………………………………………..176 vii Chapter 7: The Changing of the Guard…………………………………………………….187 7.1. Cassander’s First Attempt at Macedon………………….……………………………188 7.2 The Winter of 317/16 and Cassander’s Consolidation of Power………….205 7.3 Cassander’s Assumption of Power……………………………………………………..222 Chapter 8: The Beginning of the End………………………………………………………247 8.1 The Third War of the Diadochoi 315………………..………………………………..250 8.2 War and Peace of the Dynasts……………………………….…………………………..261 8.3 The Aftermath of 311 and the Claim of Herakles………………………………..275 Chapter 9: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………290 Appendix 1: Antigonus’ Letter to Scepsis………………………………………………..297 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………..301 viii Chapter 1: Introduction. In the late summer or early autumn of 3193 and after a period of illness, the regent of Macedon and guardian of the kings, Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV, Antipater, the son of Iolaus, died. Before he died, Antipater appointed one Polyperchon, the son of Simmias, as the successor to the regency, along with his own son Cassander, as Polyperchon’s second in command. While there was a brief period of time where the transition appeared peaceful, hostilities broke out between the regent and his second in command that would rage across Macedon and Greece for over a decade, eventuating in the death of the majority of the royal Argead family, and paving the way for the installation of the Antipatrid Dynasty in the European Sphere of the fragmenting Macedonian Empire. In recent decades, the emerging Hellenistic World, and the multiple power factions that resulted in the creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, have received an increased amount of academic attention. This was a period of great political