BRIDGING THE HELLESPONT: THE SUCCESSOR LYSIMACHUS - A STUDY IN EARLY HELLENISTIC KINGSHIP Helen Sarah Lund PhD University College, London ProQuest Number: 10610063 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10610063 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT Literary evidence on Lysimachus reveals a series of images which may say more about contemporary or later views on kingship than about the actual man, given the intrusion of bias, conventional motifs and propaganda. Thrace was Lysimachus* legacy from Alexander's empire; though problems posed by its formidable tribes and limited resources excluded him from the Successors' wars for nearly ten years, its position, linking Europe and Asia, afforded him some influence, Lysimachus failed to conquer "all of Thrace", but his settlements there achieved enough stability to allow him thoughts of rule across the Hellespont, in Asia Minor, More ambitious and less cautious than is often thought, Lysimachus' acquisition of empire in Asia Minor, Macedon and Greece from c.315 BC to 284 BC reflects considerable military and diplomatic skills, deployed primarily when self-interest demanded rather than reflecting obligations as a permanent member of an "anti-Antigonid team". Though military prowess brought Lysimachus resources essential for kingship, it has been said that he lacked another vital quality, ability to govern. The evidence, however, suggests that his treatment of his Greek subjects differed little from that of his contemporaries and was in line with precedents set by Alexander and earlier dynasties in Asia. Kingship ritual is crucial to retaining power. Lysimachus presented a convincing image of royalty which emphasised his role as Alexander's dear friend and heir and competed successfully with those projected by his rivals. Finally, Lysimachus failed to achieve the peaceful transition of power to his heirs, a crucial test for kings. Combined with former allies' fear and envy, this brought about his fall; the resentment of his Greek subjects may be a lesser factor - widespread welcome of Seleucus as "liberator" by the cities of Asia Minor before Lysimachus' death at Corupedium is far from certain. 3 CONTENTS 1 LYSIMACHUS AND THE MEN OF LETTERS 6 2 THRACE AND PONTUS 48 3 THE ACQUISITION OF EMPIRE: AMBITION, ^jl?JTY AND ALLIANCE 114 4 AFTER IPSUS: THE EMPIRE EXTENDED 171 5 GOVERNOR OF THE GREEKS 225 6 KINGSHIP, CULT AND COURT 319 7 SCHEMING WOMEN AND SENILE DECAY ? THE LAST DAYS OF LYSIMACHUS 388 Appendices I Lysimachus* Thessalian Origin 436 II The Great Inscription from Seuthopolis (IGBR 1731 440 III Prepelaus 442 IV Lysimachus and the Problem of Prienean Autonomy 443 V Selected Inscriptions 446 Maps I Thrace and the West Pontic Coast in the 4th Century BC 457 II Western Asia Minor in the time of Lysimachus 458 Blbllography 459 Abbrevlat ions 498 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors, Mrs. Amelie Kuhrt and Professor Michael Crawford, for their invaluable advice, constructive criticism, help and encouragement; also Dr. Susan Sherwin-White, who first inspired my interest in the Diadoch period; for their help with specific problems, my thanks go to Dr. M.J. Price, Dr. Zosia Archibald and Dr. Tom Blagg. Finally I must say thank you to James Lund and Hilary Marsh for their interest, support and practical assistance over the past five years. 5 LYSIMACHUS AND THE MEN OF LETTERS On June the 10th 323 BC Alexander the Great lay dead in Babylon. Among the Companions who mourned at his bedside was Lysimachus, son of Agathocles.1 When the Regent Perdiccas redistributed the Empire's satrapies after Alexander's death, Lysimachus received the territory of Thrace.2 By 284 BC he was master of an empire embracing Thrace and Pontus, Macedonia, Thessaly, most of Anatolia and the Paphlagonian realm attached to the city of Heracleia Pontica. His power had reached its zenith. Probably in the following year his greatest enemy Demetrius Poliorcetes, taken prisoner by Seleucus, King of Syria, in 286 BC, drank himself to death. An ignominious end for a man who had worn the diadem and been hailed by the Athenians as the only true god,3 If, however, immortality is conferred through fame, then Lysimachus lost his last battle against the Besieger. Demetrius' exploits and excesses are preserved for us in the biography of Plutarch. There is no comparable record of Lysimachus' life. Information, from literature, on Lysimachus' career is restricted to scattered notices in the narratives of the Alexander and Diadoch historians. These themselves are mostly preserved in the works of later historians and epitomators. Then there are Plutarch's biographies of Lysimachus' more favoured contemporaries, the work of 1) Q.C, X.5.8; Arr.Anab. VII. 26.3-4, 6 for Alexander's Bodyguard as with him at the end, though the Metz epitome §106 which makes Lysimachus one of four privileged witnesses to Alexander's last words cannot be trusted; see Heckel, 1988 5, 12, 72-3. 2> See Ch.2. 3) Plut. Demet. 52, Athen.VI.63 = FGrH 76 F 13. 6 geographers and travel writers like Strabo and Pausanias, chroniclers like Porphyry of Tyre. Finally there is a string of anecdotes, surviving in the writings of Athenaeus, Diogenes Laertius, the moralising works of Plutarch, Seneca and other Roman writers. Some of these may go back to contemporary authors like Duris or Cleitarchus.* Both the passage of time and the possibility of bias in the sources used by these late writers lead to distortions and some conflict of evidence. The literary evidence on Lysimachus is fragmentary and often suspect. This, together with the fact that written history is essentially interpretation rather than "fact" makes it improbable that an examination of this material will lead us to the "real" Lysimachus. All that can be attempted is to discern the various traditions that developed about the man and the purposes behind them. If major themes emerge which cannot be attributed to a single source tradition, then this is the closest one can get to a "true" portrait. What then do the literary sources say about his background, his career before and after 323 BC, his relationship with Alexander and his personal character ? FAMILY BACKGROUND Pausanias and Justin® describe Lysimachus as Macedonian by birth. The patronymic, "son of Agathocles" used by Arrian and Porphyry's 4) See Walbank, CAH VII 1984 1-10 for a full discussion of the sources. 5) Just. XV,3.1, Paus. 1.9,4, 7 description of him as "Thessalus", ® however, have led to his identification as the son of the Thessalian g>i\o<; of Philip II mentioned by Theopompus.7 Dubbed an intimate of Philip's, he is also, less flatteringly, described as a rcsygoTtjC who owed his position to xoXaxeia. The evidence for Theopompus' consistent hostility to Philip and all those around him,® however, suggests that this statement should be taken with a pinch of salt. Demetrius' friend, Adeimantus of Lampsacus serves as a useful parallel. Labelled a "parasite" by the literary sources, epigraphic evidence reveals him to be a diplomat of considerable importance.® Theopompus himself tells us that Agathocles shared in Philip's councils and was sent by Philip to "deal with the Perrhaebi and take charge of affairs in that area". Since Arrian, in the Indika. names Lysimachus among the trierarchs from Pella10, the problem is most easily resolved by assuming that Agathocles was rewarded for his services with estates there. It seems likely that the family was swiftly assimilated into Macedonian society, with Agathocles' sons growing up with the status of Macedonians, The fact that not only Lysimachus, but also his brothers enjoyed a prominent position in Alexander's circle11 fits well with the picture of their father as a favourite at the Argead court. The arguments put forward by Merker, challenging both the idea of Lysimachus' Thessalian origin and his connection with 6 ) Arr.Anab. VI.28.4, Ind.18.3; Porph,, £HG III 1883 F, 4.4. 7) Athen. VI.259-60.= FGrH 115 F 81. 8 ) e.g. Athen. VI.55 = Theopomp. FGrH 115. F 209, Demet. De Eloc. 27 = FGrH 115 225c. 9) Athen VI.253a, 255c; Moretti, 1967 13; Robert, 1940 22-8. 10) Arr.Ind. 18.3, Anab.VI.28.4 11) See below. 8 Theopompus' "parasite" do not seem to me to be conclusive. 12 Certainly there is little suggestion that his father's Greek origin proved a millstone round Lysimachus' neck; the anti-Greek prejudice apparently encountered by Eumenes of Cardia13 is conspicuous by its absence. On the contrary, c.285 BC Lysimachus, at war with Pyrrhus over Macedon, "contrived to subvert Pyrrhus* principal supporters. He reproached them for having chosen as their master a man who was a foreigner" . 14 Born some time between 361 BC and 351 BC,1S and therefore roughly contemporary with Alexander, Lysimachus was presumably Agathocles' second son. His elder brother Alcimachus1® was already active as a diplomat and administrator in the first years of Alexander's rule. Possibly identifiable as the honorand of an Athenian proxeny (?) decree of 336 BC, two years later we find him leading an army, empowered by Alexander to "liberate" the cities of Ionia and Aeolis.