Introduction

Eumenes was a remarkable figure even by the standards of this very remarkable age. He was a royal secretary turned successful general and a Cardian Greek in a period dominated by native-born Macedonian aristocrats. The surviving sources for the early years following the death of Alexander the Great track his career more closely than that of any of Alexander’s other Successors. Both Plutarch and Nepos prepared biographies of his career, while ignoring more prominent and ultimately more successful contemporaries. Moreover, in general, the sources treat him very favorably. In most respects, he is presented as a brilliant military leader, contending with and often defeating those who had held major commands under Alexander. He is cited as one of the last loyalists to the Macedonian Argead monarchy, a model of fidelity to the family of Alexander (Diod. 18. 53. 7, 57. 4, 58. 2–4; 19. 44. 2; Plut. Eum. 3. 14, 12. 3; Nepos Eum. 6. 5, 13. 3), and with his death, in the words of Cornelius Nepos (Eum. 13. 3), the last hope of the Argead dynasty was lost. The picture painted by the sources is, indeed, a most sympathetic one. While successful in battle, Eumenes’ brilliance, however, was doomed to failure before the all-consum- ing prejudice of his Macedonian officers and soldiers (Diod. 18. 60. 1–3, 62. 7; 19. 13. 1; Plut. Eum. 8. 1, 1. 2; Nepos Eum. 1. 2–3). It is a most compelling story, but a fictional one nonetheless, owing its origin to the work of the historian Hieronymus, a Cardian like Eumenes himself, and likely also a relative (Anson 1975, 1980: 55–9; 2014: 539–58; Schäfer: 2002: 172).1 His history, as will be shown in Chapter 1, became the basis for the surviving narrative of Eumenes’ career. While, as noted, Eumenes was proclaimed the great champion of the royal family in our sources, the Cardian is often found working against their best interests. As with his contemporaries, Eumenes’ first concern was his own self- interest, not any loftier ideals (cf. Plut. Comp. Ser. et Eum. 2. 1–5). During the First War of the Successors, he supported the regent Perdiccas, Eumenes’ men- tor’s attempt to set aside the kings and replace them with himself. It is only after the defeat and death of this individual in this war that Eumenes found it useful to proclaim his loyalty to the royal house as a way of gaining the alliance

1 Plutarch (Comp. Ser. et Eum. 2. 2–3), however, while accepting his military brilliance and handicaps (Comp. Ser. et Eum. 1. 2–3, 2. 1), does strongly suggest that Eumenes was not as altruistic as he appears in our other sources. In fact, it appears clear that Eumenes was not Plutarch’s favorite subject. Of all the Parallel Lives only in his pairing of Sertorius and Eumenes is the Roman presented first. As Brian Bosworth states, Plutarch was more attracted to Sertorius than to Eumenes (1992A: 56–7).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004297173_002 Introduction 2 of a later regent and the loyalty of Alexander’s former veterans still serving in Asia. Moreover, as this study will conclude, Eumenes was not ultimately the victim of ethnic prejudice, but, such bias that did exist, was based rather on class and not national origin, and while this bias hindered his career, it did not doom it. Even though Eumenes was prominent in the Macedonian court and a close ally and companion of first Philip II and later of his son Alexander III (the Great), unlike the majority of those who dominated both the court and especially the army, he did not come from one of the aristocratic families of Macedonia. He was a Greek from Cardia. Even with respect to class, the Cardian’s downfall had more to do with circumstance and competing ambi- tions than with prejudice of any kind (Anson 1980: 55–9; 2014B: 539–57). As will be shown, on many occasions Eumenes used his birth to assuage the concerns of many of his very aristocratic Macedonian colleagues. In truth, the new age ushered in by Alexander’s conquests was one of opportunity for Greeks and Macedonians alike. While a sense of Macedonian nationalism was introduced by Philip (Anson 2008A: 2013A: 62–71), it counted for little outside of Macedonia proper, and even there was more muted than would be typical in the city-states of southern Greece. The prominence of Macedonians in the ranks of Alexander’s Successors was due to the military nature of this new age. These individuals had been Macedonia’s traditional military com- manders from earliest times down to Alexander’s death. Yet, even here, while armies might for the first decade after the death of the Conqueror have a core of Macedonian veterans (Roisman 2012), beginning in the last years of his life and increasingly in the armies of his Successors, Greek mercenaries and Asiatic troops came to dominate numerically the forces of these con- tenders for Alexander’s legacy (Olbrycht 2013: 159–79; Anson 2013A: 174–176; 2014A: 3–4, 19–20, 36–7, 191–2; 2014B: 548–9). Outside of Macedonia, the term “Macedonian” even came very quickly to represent a fighting style or a politi- cal status (Diod. 19. 14. 5, 27. 6, 29. 3), not a true ethnicity. Moreover, in Asia and Africa the old Greek/barbarian dichotomy dominated, unifying those whose origins were Greece or Macedonia against Asians and Egyptians. Even though native peoples might serve in the army and in local administrative positions throughout these kingdoms in Asia and Egypt, in the court and in the new urban foundations, native Greeks and those assimilated to Greek culture dominated. Greek-speakers became a privileged class in a world that far transcended the Greek city-state (Goudriaan 1988: 14, 119). Historically Greek ethnicity was never so much tied to blood as to culture (Anson 2009C). “The title Hellenes is applied rather to those who share our culture than to those who share a common blood” (Isoc. 4.50).