STUDIES in the DEVELOPMENT of ROYAL AUTHORITY in ARGEAD MACEDONIA WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT Annandale, Virginia B.A., University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STUDIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AUTHORITY IN ARGEAD MACEDONIA WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT Annandale, Virginia B.A., University of Virginia, 1975 M.A., University of Virginia, 1978 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia May, ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the elements which defined Argead kingship from the mid-seventh until the late fourth centuries B.C. It begins by reviewing the Argead king list where it is argued that the official reckoning of the dynasty's past was exploited in order to secure the throne against rivals, including those who were Argeads. Chapter Two analyzes the principles of Argead succession and concludes that the current theories on the subject are unsatisfactory in face of the e v id enc e. Ra the r, the sources suggest that Argead succession was a function of status where many ingredients were considered before a candidate 1 eg it ima te 1 y ass urned the throne. Among the factors influencing the selection were, the status of a potential heir's mother, age, competence, order of birth, and in lieu of father to son succession, relation to the late monarch. Chapter Three outlines the development of the king's military, judicial, economic, and social responsibilities from the personal monarchy of the early period to the increa~ingly centralized realm of the fourth century. Chapter Four concentrates on the religious aspects of Argead kingship, reviewing the monarch's religious duties· and interpreting a widespread foundation myth as an attempt to distinguish Argead status by its divine origin and its specific cult responsibilities. It is concluded that religious factors played an essential role in the justification of Argead power. The last chapter focuses on Macedonian reaction to Argead authority, especially after Alexander the Great's death. Here it is argued that the Macedonians maintained a consistent loyalty for the ruling family because" of its ancient heritage of royal status, because of the prestige it had accumulated under Philip II and Alexander III, and because there was no recognized method by which the Argeads could be replaced in their duties. Finally, a combination of incompetent kings, feuding factions, and the size of Alexander's empire forced the Macedonians to redefine the political structures under which they lived. In addition to the body of this dissertation there are two appendices: one on Arrhidaues (Philip III) until his accession, and the other on the major source problems which confront a study of this type. © COPYRIGHT 1985 BY WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. • • . • • • . • • . • • . • . • . • . ii INTRODUCTION.. • • • . • • • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . 1 CHAPTER I. THE ARGEAD KING LIST........................ 16 II. MACEDONIAN ROYAL SUCCESSION................. 63 III. THE ARGEADS, ROYAL STATUS AND MACEDONIAN SOCIETY. 15 2 IV. KINGSHIP, RELIGION AND THE ARGEADS .......... 236 V. MACEDONIAN LOYALTY FOR THE ARGEAD DYNASTY ... 279 COI:-JCLUSION........................................... 379 APPENDIX I. THE SEARCH FOR ARRHIDAEUS ................... 383 II. SOURCE PROBLEMS ...•......................... 416 BIBLIOGRAPHY. • • . 4 41 Acknowledgements of gratitude ought to be brief and sincere. Mine will be both. First, I would like to thank my wife, Judy, for bearing with the time it has taken to complete my formal education. I certainly could not have accomplished this feat without her support. Next, I wish to thank J.P. Adams for his guidance and friendship throughout the last ten years, although I would not like to burden him with any of the errors contained in this work. I also owe an enormous debt to both W.L. Adams and R.B. Hitchner for undertaking the direction of this dissertation and for their many helpful suggetions on its organization and content. Of course, I must be held fully accountable for its present form. My penultimate expression of recognition concerns my colleagues at the University of Santa Clara, who have encouraged the completion of this dissertation, and who have provided me with the time to do so. Last, I wish to thank posthumously my friend and mentor, Harry J. Dell. I have never met a man better suited to being a teacher, nor one more full of the spirit of life. Perhaps the two traits are indistinguishable. 1 INTRODUCTION The northern Balkans are lands of passage and transition. Long before the historical Macedonian kingdom had been founded, whole nations had entered and exited the region, while others of varying origin settled more or less permanently. The end of the Bronze Age (ca. 1200 B.C.) especially saw immigrants from the north move down geographically determined natural highways to the central and southern Pindus highlands and the central Macedonian plain. The relative wealth of the area's mineral and forest resources was substantial, and together with the size of the Macedonian plain and an access to the Aegean Sea, proved irresistable to migrant folks seeking new homes.l The earliest dominant nation in the Iron Age was that of the Bryges, which settled the central Macedonian plain sometime about 1150.2 The Bryges remained in the region for about 350 years, after which time they emigrated to Asia Minor for unknown reasons and became the historical Phrygians. Their departure from Macedonia, perhaps stimulated by a growing Illyrian presence, opened the northern Balkans to the mixed settlement which existed in the historical period.3 Peoples-in the area who began to play increasingly 2 important roles with the departure of the Bryges included the Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, Macedonians, and increasingly, colonists from the Greek south. Probably the most powerful of these from about 800 to about 650 were the Illyrians. Their dominance, however, was checked by the latter date when a chain reaction of disturbances was ignited, probably by an offshoot of the Cimmerian invasion of Asia Minor (where these steppe nomads destroyed the power of the Phrygians). The subsequent decades of confusion in the Balkans provided the opportunity for one group-- from the piedmont district of Macedonia known as Pieria and led by the Argead royal house--to expand its influence and to found a kingdom which in the fourth century B.C. would produce an era of Macedonian greatness.4 In this dissertation I will concern myself with the role of the Argeads in the formation and history of the kingdom which came to be identified simply as "Macedonia". The Argead dynasty came to rule a portion of what is today Macedonia in the middle of the seventh century before Christ.s From that time until the death of the last Argead king more than three hundred years later, the fortunes of the dynasty fluctuated dramatically, but never throughout this period did any domestic faction challenge the legitimacy of the Argead right to rule. This is not to say that there were no disputed successions during the Argead era-~in fact, our evidence suggests that this was a iecurring problem for the dynasty. As we will s~e 3 however, what challenges arose invariably came from other members of the royal family. In the minds of the Macedonians, the Argeads were somehow distinguished from everyone else within the kingdom, and somewhere amid the recognized distinctions lay the justification for their royal status. The preservation of the Argead dynastic tradition for over three hundred years, however impressive it was at times considering the problems the Macedonian kingdom faced, was not unique in the northern Balkans during the period of this study since ruling houses were common in the region.6 Thus, what makes the role of the Argeads in Macedonia worthy of study is not the peculiarity of their system which was idiosyncratic to the place and time, but rather the fact that Argead-led Macedonia ultimately exploded out of the Balkans and conquered all of the lands between Greece and India. Although much scholarship has been concentrated upon the two most famous Argead kings, Philip II and his son Alexander the Great, and although the kingdom has recently been much in the news thanks to the stunning discovery of two unplundered royal tombs, no study of Macedonian kingship has done justice to the office which did much to alter the direction of the Greek world in antiquity. 7 The reader must bear in mind in what fol lows that for - much of the period between the middle of the seventh and 4 the end of the fourth century before Christ "Upper Macedonia" lay beyond the control of the Argead kings, whose capital was first at Aegae and then at Pella. Thus, the customs and loyalties which will be described for the most part did not apply in the mountain cantons, and when they did, never with the same intensity as was found in "Lower Macedonia." The cantons of E 1 imea, Tymphaea, Ores tis, and Lyncus mostly maintained their independence and traditional ruling houses until the reign of Philip II, even though the inhabitants of these areas were ethnically and socially related to the Macedonians who acknowledged Argead authority. 8 The main reason for the failure of the Argeads to control these areas was military weakness. 9 The various powers to the west, north, and east of the center of Argead power may not always have been formidable throughout this era, but their cumulative force more than equalled what the Argead king could muster especially when the domestic affairs of the Argead kingdom were chaotic. Exceptions to the impotence of Argead authority exist. For instance, the reign of Alexander I saw a successful consolidation of authority and an expansion of the kingdom to the w~st and east.1 0 Largely thanks to the Persian intervention of the late sixth century which preceded their invasion of the southern Balkans, Alexander was able to subdue the upland Macedonian riantons.