DOCSLIB.ORG

Alexander the Great and the Ancient Disabled

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alexander the Great and the Ancient Disabled chapter 33 The Conscience of the King: Alexander the Great and the Ancient Disabled Alexandra F. Morris Alexander the Great is the most widely known secular historical figure in Western culture today. Most people know of him or his story. While atten- tion has been paid to some of the people surrounding Alexander the Great, there is almost no recognition that some of those people were disabled. Among them are Alexander’s half brother Arrhidaeus, his friend Harpalus, his father Philip ii, and a group of mutilated Greeks who Alexander and his army encoun- tered while traveling to Persepolis. By carefully examining the ancient sources, modern historical literature, disability studies, popular movies, educational and popular tv shows, and historical fiction books, we will see that these differently-abled people have, with a few exceptions, either been forgotten about or almost completely erased in both modern historical scholarship and popular media—to the overall detriment of both history and the character of Alexander the Great himself. Through these omissions, Alexander’s more com- passionate nature as well as his humane side are erased from history as well. Arrhidaeus, the first subject of discussion, also known as Philip iii Arrhi- daeus, Alexander’s half-brother, is reported to have been mentally disabled. Plutarch mentions that Arrhidaeus was a “bastard brother, who was also a fool”, and “deficient in intellect owing to bodily disease. This, however, did not come upon him in the course of nature or of its own accord, indeed, it is said that as a boy he displayed an exceedingly gifted and noble disposition: but after Olympias gave him drugs which injured his body and ruined his mind.”1 Justin mentions in regard to Arrhidaeus’s succession of Alexander that Ptolemy objected to Arrhidaeus as king, “not only on account of the meanness of his mother (he being the son of a courtesan of Larissa), but because of the extraor- dinary weakness with which he was affected, lest, while he had the name of king, another should exercise the authority.”2 Diodorus describes Arrhidaeus 1 Plutarch, Loeb Classical Library: The Parallel Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), 250–251, 439. 2 Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of PompeiusTrogus. trans. John Selby Watson. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853), 13.2. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004359932_034 824 morris as, “son of Philip … although he was afflicted with an incurable mental ill- ness.”3 Quintus Curtius Rufus does not portray Arrhidaeus as mentally disabled, but there may be a reason for this. Rufus most likely wrote his biography of Alexander during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius, who also had a disability, most likely cerebral palsy.4 Therefore it would not have been pru- dent for him to portray Arrhidaeus as mentally incompetent, since he was making the comparison between Arrhidaeus and Claudius as both, if only temporarily, reunited their respective empires. Arrian does not mention Arrhi- daeus’ disability (but this could be due to some of Arrian’s work being lost), but does mention that when he was made king after Alexander’s death, that Perdiccas was made the guardian of the king, not a usual Macedonian prac- tice. Interestingly, Arrian also notes that, “Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alex- ander with him, contrary to the wish of Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hin- dered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention.”5 This suggests that despite Arrihdaeus’ disabil- ity, he was mentally aware enough to make his own decisions, defy the will of others, and succeed at doing what he wanted, despite the obstacles cre- ated by others. There are some historians who believe that the Arrhidaeus mentioned above is a different Arrhidaeus, but this may say more about the unconscious bias that exists against the disabled than anything else; since in their minds, because Arrhidaeus was mentally disabled he would not have been capable of making decisions for himself.6 Other historians think that the two Arrhidaeuses are one and the same.7 It is particularly interesting if there were indeed two Arrhidaeuses that there is no title or nickname given to one to distinguish them from each other, as was seen in the case of Klei- tus the Black and Kleitus the White, Ptolemy son of Lagos, or any of the other Macedonians referred to as the “son of” someone when they are mentioned in 3 Diodorus Siculus, LoebClassicalLibrary:Libraryof History. trans. Russell M. Geer. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 15. 4 Andrew Chugg, The Death of Alexander the Great: A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (Bristol: Andrew Michael Chugg, 2009), 32–33. 5 Saint Photius, The Library of Photius: Volume 1, trans. John Henry Freese. (Princeton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), 162. 6 Waldemar Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire. (Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 52–53. 7 Elizabeth D. Carney, “The Trouble with Philip Arrhidaeus”, Ancient History Bulletin 15 (2001): 63–89..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman
    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN WALSH, Antipater and Early Hellenistic Literature
    Antipater and Early Hellenistic Literature* John Walsh INTRODUCTION It is well known that there was a flowering of Greek literature under Alexander and in the period after his death – at least in terms of the quantity of works, even if some may dispute the quality. A vast array of histories, memoirs, pamphlets, geographical literature, philosophical treatises, and poetry was written during this period, and the political fate of the Greek world in its domination by Macedon and the Successor kingdoms was tied to an increasing tendency for kings to be patrons of literature. Many works were now produced at royal courts, under the patronage of the Successors or by partisan individuals who had served under various kings.1 Antipater, Alexander’s regent in Macedonia, has a neglected but interesting connection with literature in the early Hellenistic era. Antipater was certainly overshadowed by both Philip and Alexander, and the other Diadochs, and his place in the development of Hellenistic intellectualism and literature has been overlooked in modern scholarship. First, in Sections I and II below, I show that Antipater, as Philip had done before him, had a role in the development of Hellenistic literature and was himself an author. There were also intriguing, if speculative, connections between Antipater’s court and the emerging tradition of historical epic. Secondly, in Section III, I trace how Antipater suffered unduly from hostile historiographical traditions directed at him by the propaganda of rival Diadochs, particularly those produced under Ptolemy and the Antigonid partisan Hieronymus of Cardia. I. ANTIPATER’S WORKS2 A passage in the Suda provides some tantalising evidence of Antipater as a writer of history and letters: Antipater was the son of Iolaus, of the city Paliura in Macedonia.
    [Show full text]
  • Eumenes, Neoptolemus and "PSI" XII 1284 Bosworth, a B Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 3; Periodicals Archive Online Pg
    Eumenes, Neoptolemus and "PSI" XII 1284 Bosworth, A B Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 3; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 227 Eumenes, Neoptolemus and PSI XII 1284 A. B. Bosworth N 1932 E. Breccia discovered a small scrap of papyrus at Kom Ali I el Gamman near Oxyrhynchus. Once discovered it waited nearly twenty years for publication. The editio princeps of 1951 was the work of Vittorio Bartoletti, aided by suggestions from Maas and Jacoby.1 The papyrus itself consists of three columns, numbered consecutively 81-83, of which the central column is preserved almost complete. Those to right and left are defective except for a few letters at the extremities which defy reconstruction.2 The script belongs to the late second century. I shall first give the text with rudimentary critical apparatus and then a translation of the consecutive narrative. ]!,TE"e [we cp]9flfPwTarrjV 7ToL[~e]ff!' r9~e i7T7T[E"v]eLv [T]~V 0tPW €7TEXcfJpoVV [€]v TagE [£] oi S€ KaT67TLv av.rwv, oeo£ imrije, fJ T [V]XOL ~g!}'59!,TL~OV wc lmO rfj gVVEXE{~ [T]WV fl~~cP!, cWa~:rEAoVvTE[C] ~v EP./-'O/\!}!,, a \, TWVA" L7T7TEWV. E"VP.EV1JC OE,"" wc( 'T7}VI TE SV'}'K/\T/CLVI:. I \ TOV- svvac-I:. 5 7TLCp.oV 7C!W Ma'5~S6vwV7TVK~V KaTELSEV Kat aVTOVC T~j~ yvcfJp.a[LC] EC, TO"'".... E7TL 7Tav KLVOVVEVELV~ " EPPWP.EVOVC,, 7TEP.7TELI av1"'0 LC .!:t,EVVLav~ I avopaJI ~ p.aKE"Sovt~ov7a rfj <p [W ]vfl, <ppacaL KEAEvcac WC KaTU c76p.a P.€V ou p.aXEL7aL aUToLc 7Tapa'5[oAov]~wv S~ T[fi] TE i7T7TC[) Kat TaLC TWV tPLAwv 7agECLV E"t[p]gOL aUTovc TWV E7TL7[rySEl]wv' oi S€, El Kat [EL] 10 7Tapv IXp.axol TLVEC ccptc [L]!, St;JKOVCLV aM' OtJT' [«Xv] Tep ')IE ALP.ep EVt V9~[V] avTLT[ 1 vO/Ll'O]r'TEC Latte: perhaps E1TtVOOV]r'TEC (cf Arrian 1.23.5 [see below]).
    [Show full text]
  • Companion Cavalry and the Macedonian Heavy Infantry
    THE ARMY OP ALEXANDER THE GREAT %/ ROBERT LOCK IT'-'-i""*'?.} Submitted to satisfy the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. in the School of History in the University of Leeds. Supervisor: Professor E. Badian Date of Submission: Thursday 14 March 1974 IMAGING SERVICES NORTH X 5 Boston Spa, Wetherby </l *xj 1 West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ. * $ www.bl.uk BEST COPY AVAILABLE. TEXT IN ORIGINAL IS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE PAGE ABSTRACT The army with which Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire was "built around the Macedonian Companion cavalry and the Macedonian heavy infantry. The Macedonian nobility were traditionally fine horsemen, hut the infantry was poorly armed and badly organised until the reign of Alexander II in 369/8 B.C. This king formed a small royal standing army; it consisted of a cavalry force of Macedonian nobles, which he named the 'hetairoi' (or Companion]! cavalry, and an infantry body drawn from the commoners and trained to fight in phalangite formation: these he called the »pezetairoi» (or foot-companions). Philip II (359-336 B.C.) expanded the kingdom and greatly increased the manpower resources for war. Towards the end of his reign he started preparations for the invasion of the Persian empire and levied many more Macedonians than had hitherto been involved in the king's wars. In order to attach these men more closely to himself he extended the meaning of the terms »hetairol» and 'pezetairoi to refer to the whole bodies of Macedonian cavalry and heavy infantry which served under him on his campaigning.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macedonian Patriot: the Diadoch Craterus Edward M
    The Macedonian Patriot: The Diadoch Craterus Edward M. Anson Much has been written concerning the man whom Alexander “honored most” (Plut. Alex. 47. 10) who was described as the king’s “most loyal follower” (Arr. Anab. 7. 12. 3), generally recognized as his closest companion after Hephaestion (Diod. 17. 114. 1-2), and among Alexander’s commanders “arguably the best” (Heckel 1992: 107), but who in the final analysis failed to become one of the major players in the aftermath of Alexander’s death. He has been termed “the right man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time” (Ashton 1993: 131); proclaimed that he “lacked that fine edge of ruthlessness necessary for supreme power” (Green 1990: 8). This paper will suggest that Craterus was not the victim of being in the wrong place at the critical time, caught between Macedonia and Babylon, nor did he lack the ability to be ruthless, but was in the final analysis a Macedonian patriot (as noted by Heckel 1992: 107), who was content to serve the royal family and his kingdom. As Plutarch (Alex. 47. 10) comments, Craterus was “king loving.” It was in defense of his king and country that Craterus could be quite ruthless. While Waldemar Heckel’s claim that the oft termed “Philotas Plot” against the life of Alexander was in reality a plot against the life of Philotas orchestrated by Craterus and others in part due to their personal ambitions (Heckel 1977: 9-21; 1992: 115-118; 2006: 27-33, 218-19), this is too strong an indictment of Craterus’ personal ruthlessness, but it is a clear example that the friend and Somaphylax was capable of savagery in defense of the crown.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Veterans After His Death , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:1 (1984) P.51
    HAMMOND, N. G. L., Alexander's Veterans After His Death , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:1 (1984) p.51 Alexander's Veterans After His Death N. G. L. Hammond HE INFANTRYMEN who had served with Alexander in the con­ T quest of Asia were justly famous.! Hieronymus of Cardia, whose views we may deduce from Diodorus and Plutarch,2 gave a special accolade to the elite corps of that infantry, the Silvershields. "At this time lin 317 B.C.]," wrote Diodorus, "the youngest of the Silvershields was about sixty, most of the others about seventy and some even older, but all were irresistible through their experience and strength. So great in their case was their deftness of hand and their courage; for they had been trained continually in the school of danger." "The Silvershields were indeed the oldest of the men who had served with Philip and Alexander," wrote Plutarch of the same occasion, "masters of war without a defeat or a reverse during that span of time, many being already seventy and none younger than sixty. " Diod. 19.41.2, 7TavTES 8£ Tat~ EJ.t7TEtpW.t~ Kat Tat~ pWJ.l,at~ avV7To­ UTa TOt • Touavn1 7TEpt avTOV~ ;, v EVXEtpW. Kat TC)AJ.l,a 8w T7J V (J1JVEXEtaV T[;W KW8Vvwv (compare 19.28.1 and 19.30.5-6). Plut. Eum. 16.4, Kat yap ;'uav oi 7TPEU{3VTaTOt TWV 7TEpi <l>iAt7T7TOV , , A, ' /: ~ ., , (J' ' , ' , , " ~ Kat r1.J\E",aVupov, WU7TEp a I\.TJTat 7TOI\.EJ.l,WV aTJTTTJTOt Kat a7TTWTE~ Ei.~ EKEtVO xpOVOV. As the truth of these passages has been doubted,3 let us consider the implications of these and analogous statements.
    [Show full text]
  • “Alexander the Great: a Lesson Taught by Roman Historians” Jaxon Saunders Western Oregon University, [email protected]
    Western Oregon University Digital Commons@WOU Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) Department of History 2011 “Alexander the Great: A Lesson Taught by Roman Historians” Jaxon Saunders Western Oregon University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Saunders, Jaxon, "“Alexander the Great: A Lesson Taught by Roman Historians”" (2011). Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History). 100. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his/100 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jaxon Saunders History 499 Senior Thesis June 13, 2011 © Jaxon Saunders, 2011 Alexander the Great: A Lesson Taught by Roman Historians ΣΤΟΝ ΚΑΛΛΙΤΕΡΟ ΠΑΝΕ ΤΑ ΛΑΦΥΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΓΝΩΣΗΣ (to the best goes the spoils of knowledge) Saunders 1 The image of Alexander the Great, “according to the many legends he was a king, a hero, a god, a conqueror, a philosopher, a scientist, a prophet, a statesman, and a visionary.”1 This is the story of Alexander the Great that is taught. The deeds of valor are truly awe-inspiring to those who take them at face value. Alexander is seen as a man who broke the mold. Libraries have been devoted to the study of Alexander. However, over the past sixty years scholars have become divided about their understanding of such a figure.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age
    Macquarie University Department of Ancient History 2nd Semester, 2011. AHIS 241 / 341 AlexanderAlexander thethe GreatGreat andand thethe HellenisticHellenistic AgeAge Unit Outline, Schedule, Tutorial Materials and Bibliography 1 Contents: Unit Introduction and Requirements p. 3 Unit Schedule: Lecture and Tutorial topics p. 9 Map 1: Alexander's March of Conquest. p. 11 Weekly Tutorial Materials p. 12 Map 2: Alexander's Successors, 303 B.C. p. 17 Map 3: The 3rd Century World of Alexander’s Successors p. 18 Map 4: The Background to the Maccabean Revolt p. 27 Unit Main Bibliography p. 32 2 Macquarie University Department of Ancient History 2011 AHIS 241 / 341: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. UNIT INTRODUCTION This Unit on Alexander the Great and the ‘Hellenistic Age’ will begin with the political situation in Fourth Century Greece and the rise of Macedon. It will focus first on the career of Alexander the Great, and the interpretation of a number of key episodes in his life. The aim will be to build up an overall picture of his motives and achievements, and the consequences of his extraordinary conquests for later history. The focus will then turn to the break up of his ‘Empire’ at his death, and the warfare among his successors which led to the creation of the great rival kingdoms of the Hellenistic period. The Unit will be primarily a study in cultural history, set against the background of the political history of the Mediterranean world. It will not be tied to an event-by-event account of the post- Classical Greek world, but will focus also on the history of ideas and institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Murder of Perdiccas and the River Crossing in Ancient Macedonia*
    Karanos 1, 2018 87-106 Death on the Nile: The murder of Perdiccas and the river crossing in Ancient Macedonia* by Antonio Ignacio Molina Marín Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected] ABSTRACT The death of Perdiccas, son of Orontes, during his invasion of Egypt is a fact hardly understandable, so that we can find different explanations for this event. The main goal of this paper is to establish a connection between Perdiccas’ death and the importance, meaning of rivers and its crossing for the ancient Macedonians. Indeed, rivers were related to kingship. This fact is reflected in its relationship with kings of the Balkan geographical area (Polyaen. 4.12.3). Thus, we can find passages in which some of most important mythical characters were begotten by a god-river (Asteropaios, Rhesus, Orpheus, etc). Besides, sometimes even the majesty comes from the river, because the kings were crowned into the river or near one (App. Syr. 56; Justin 15. 4.2- 7). In fact, the founder of the Argead royal house, Perdiccas I, became king after being saved by a river (Hdt. 8. 138). The strong connection between kings and rivers can be perceived during the crossing, because the Macedonian monarchs, especially Alexander the Great, were responsible of this act. In other words, a true king was able to protect his soldiers during the crossing, given his close link with the water. Perdiccas son of Orontes wanted to become king, therefore the disaster of Nile could be understood like ordeal which showed the will of the river. Perdiccas was not considered a true king, while Ptolemy should become one.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great (WP)
    Alexander the Great Alexander the Great's father, Philip, was the brother of King Perdiccas III of Macedon or Macedonia, in northern Greece. In 359 BCE, King Perdiccas died. His young son Amyntas was expected to succeed him, with Philip as his regent, but Philip usurped his nephew's throne, making himself King Philip II. He proved to be a strong ruler, and in a few decades he conquered most of Greece. Philip's wife was Olympias, daughter of King Neoptolemus I of Epirus, which was located in what is now southern Albania and northwest Greece. Their son Alexander was born in 356 BCE Alexander also had a younger sister, Cleopatra (not the famous Egyptian queen). Unfortunately for Alexander and Cleopatra, their parents hated each other. In keeping with Macedonian tradition, Philip had several lesser wives, and Olympias regarded these other women and their children with great animosity. When one of her rivals gave birth to a mentally challenged son, Philip Arridaeus, it was rumored that Olympias had caused his disability with poison. Olympias told Alexander that Philip wasn't his real father, but this probably wasn't true. Philip certainly seems to have believed that Alexander was his son. He made sure the boy was well educated; the great philosopher Aristotle was one of Alexander's tutors. But Philip wasn't a particularly kind father. Alexander had a high-pitched voice, and Philip once told him that he should be embarrassed by it. In his childhood or teens Alexander became friends with a handsome boy his age named Hephaestion.
    [Show full text]
  • EUMENES Reigned 197-160? B.C
    75 AD EUMENES Reigned 197-160? B.C. Plutarch translated by John Dryden Plutarch (46-120) - Greek biographer, historian, and philosopher, sometimes known as the encyclopaedist of antiquity. He is most renowned for his series of character studies, arranged mostly in pairs, known as “Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans” or “Parallel Lives.” Eumenes (75 AD) - A study of the life of Eumenes, a Greek ruler. EUMENES DURIS reports that Eumenes, the Cardian, was the son of a poor wagoner in the Thracian Chersonesus, yet liberally educated, both as a scholar and a soldier; and that while he was but young, Philip, passing through Cardia, diverted himself with a sight of the wrestling matches and other exercises of the youth of that place, among whom Eumenes performing with success, and showing signs of intelligence and bravery, Philip was so pleased with him as to take him into his service. But they seem to speak more probably who tell us that Philip advanced Eumenes for the friendship he bore to his father, whose guest he had sometime been. After the death of Philip, he continued in the service of Alexander, with the title of his principal secretary, but in as great favour as the most intimate of his familiars, being esteemed as wise and faithful as any person about him, so that he went with troops under his immediate command as general in the expedition against India, and succeeded to the post of Perdiccas, when Perdiccas was advanced to that of Hephaestion, then newly deceased. And therefore, after the death of Alexander, when Neoptolemus, who had been captain of his life-guard, said that he had followed Alexander with shield and spear, but Eumenes only with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed at him, as knowing very well that, besides other marks of favour, the king had done him the honour to make him a kind of kinsman to himself by marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great (17)
    Alexander the Great (17) Alexander the Great (*356; r. 336-323): the Macedonian king who defeated his Persian colleague Darius III Codomannus and conquered the Achaemenid Empire. During his campaigns, Alexander visited a.o. Egypt, Babylonia, Persis, Media, Bactria, the Punjab, and the valley of the Indus. In the second half of his reign, he had to find a way to rule his newly conquered countries. Therefore, he made Babylon his capital and introduced the oriental court ceremonial, which caused great tensions with his Macedonian and Greek officers. This is the seventeenth of a series of articles. A complete overview can be found here and a chronological table of his reign can be found here. The purple testament of bleeding war The settlement of Babylon Alexander died in the afternoon of 11 June 323 BCE. Next day, his generals met to discuss the new situation. Under normal circumstances, they, as representatives of the Macedonian nation in arms, were to choose a new king. This could be easy, because the dead king had a brother, Arridaeus. However, he was considered mentally unfit to rule. As a consequence, it was difficult to reach a solution. According to Quintus Curtius Rufus, Perdiccas, the commander of the Companion cavalry who had been appointed by Alexander as his successor, said that it was best to wait until Roxane, who was pregnant, had given birth. If it were a son, it would be logical to chose him as the new king. This was all too transparent: Perdiccas wanted to be in sole command until the boy had grown up.
    [Show full text]