DOCSLIB.ORG

"The Women Who Would Be Kings": Adea-Eurydike and Olympias ―The Women Who Would Be Kings‖

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Øystein Wiklund Lyngsnes Øystein Wiklund Lyngsnes Øystein "The Women Who Would Be Kings" A study of the Argead royal women in the early Diadochoi Wars (323-316 BCE): The Rivalry of Adea-Eurydike and Olympias and the Death of the Argead dynasty Master’s thesis Master’s Master’s thesis in History, Master's Programme Supervisor: Leif Inge Ree Petersen "The Women Who Would Be Kings": Adea-Eurydike and Olympias Be Kings": Adea-Eurydike Who Would "The Women Trondheim, May 2018 NTNU Faculty of Humanities Faculty Department of Historical Studies Department of Historical Norwegian University of Science and Technology of Science University Norwegian The Malmaison cameo, 3rd century BCE, Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. ―The Women Who Would be Kings‖ A study of the Argead women in the early Diadochoi Wars (323-316 BCE): The Rivalry of Adea-Eurydike and Olympias i ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... v Chronology ............................................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ ix 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Nature of the Extant Sources ........................................................................................... 6 1.2 Problems of chronology ................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Modern Historiography .................................................................................................. 17 2.0 Macedonian Politics ........................................................................................................... 21 2.1 The Macedonian kingdom of Philip and Alexander ...................................................... 21 2.2 Royal legitimacy ............................................................................................................ 24 2.3 The Kings, the Military and the Successors................................................................... 28 2.4 Argead women and royalty ............................................................................................ 31 2.5 Summary of Macedonian politics .................................................................................. 33 3.0 Greco-Macedonian Women ............................................................................................... 35 3.1 Women in Ancient Athens ............................................................................................. 35 3.2 Macedonian women ....................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Gender as performance and performative gender .......................................................... 41 3.4 Summary of Greco-Macedonian women ....................................................................... 44 4.0 Ambitions, Motivations, Actions ....................................................................................... 45 4.1 Kleopatra and the Successors ......................................................................................... 45 4.2 Kynnane‘s Ambition ...................................................................................................... 51 4.3 Adea or Eurydike? ......................................................................................................... 53 4.4 Olympias, religion, axiōma and timé ............................................................................. 55 4.5 Summary of motivations and actions ............................................................................. 59 5.0 Rivalry of Adea & Olympias: Strategies ........................................................................... 61 5.1 Military strength............................................................................................................. 61 iii 5.2 Philia .............................................................................................................................. 73 5.3 Murder............................................................................................................................ 82 5.4 Summary of Adea‘s and Olympias‘ rivalry ................................................................... 86 6.0 The Diadochoi and the Legacy of Adea and Olympias ..................................................... 89 6.1 The wives of Kassander? ............................................................................................... 89 6.2 The royal tombs of Aigai – the grave of Adea-Eurydike............................................... 94 6.3 The world of the Diadochoi and Epigonoi ................................................................... 100 6.4 Summary of Adea‘s and Olympias‘ legacy ................................................................. 103 7.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 105 8.0 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 111 8.1 Extant sources .............................................................................................................. 111 8.2 Research literature ....................................................................................................... 112 8.3 Further research ........................................................................................................... 122 Appendix I – Genealogic table of Philip II‘s extended family .............................................. 123 Appendix II – Prosopography ................................................................................................ 125 Adea (Eurydike) ................................................................................................................. 125 Alexander (IV) ................................................................................................................... 126 Antipater ............................................................................................................................ 127 Kassander ........................................................................................................................... 128 Kleopatra ............................................................................................................................ 130 Kynnane ............................................................................................................................. 130 Olympias ............................................................................................................................ 131 Philip (III) Arrhidaios ........................................................................................................ 133 Polyperchon ....................................................................................................................... 133 Thessalonikē ...................................................................................................................... 134 iv Acknowledgements I would like to extend my warmest gratitude to my supervisor Leif Inge Ree Petersen, PhD, for patiently spending many hours poring over my drafts, for reeling me in when my passion for the subject got out of hand, and for the excellent and humorous discussions we have had over the course of the past two years. I would also like to thank Russell Peter McCreight of MacEwan University for igniting in me the embers of interest in ancient history, and who kept fanning the flame when it almost died out. I would also be remiss if I did not thank my fellow students in hall 6395; your walking trips, philosophical deliberations, and incessant jokes about ―horses and swords‖ always brightened my day. A warm thank you to Henning Berg Schmidt of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, who tried his very best to help whatever the time of day or night, never allowing me to give up on myself. Lastly, thank you to my parents; without your encouragement from an early age, I would never have taken an interest in the field of history, and without you buying me a book on Greek mythology at the airport in Rhodes nearly two decades ago, ancient history would to this day be as foreign to me as it is to you. Μετὰ χάριτος. v Chronology Note all dates are Before Common Era (BCE). Period of Philip and Alexander 382 Likely birth year of Philip II of Macedon. 357 Likely birth year of Philip‘s children Kynnane and (Philip) Arrhidaios. 357 Philip marries Olympias (named Polyxena at this point). 356 Birth of Alexander the Great, Philip‘s chariot‘s victory in the Olympic Games and his victory over the Illyrians, prompting Olympias‘ name change. 354 Likely birth year of Kleopatra, daughter of Olympias and Philip. 345 Likely birth year of Thessalonikē, daughter of Nikesipolis and Philip. 338 Battle of Chaironeia which secured Philip‘s hegemony over the Greek peninsula and was Alexander‘s baptism of fire. 337 Philip‘s marriage to Kleopatra/Eurydike, daughter of Attalos, which caused a rift between him and Olympias and her children and they leave in self- imposed exile. 336 Philip is murdered at the marriage celebrations of his daughter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D
    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great and Hephaestion
    2019-3337-AJHIS-HIS 1 Alexander the Great and Hephaestion: 2 Censorship and Bisexual Erasure in Post-Macedonian 3 Society 4 5 6 Same-sex relations were common in ancient Greece and having both male and female 7 physical relationships was a cultural norm. However, Alexander the Great is almost 8 always portrayed in modern depictions as heterosexual, and the disappearance of his 9 life-partner Hephaestion is all but complete in ancient literature. Five full primary 10 source biographies of Alexander have survived from antiquity, making it possible to 11 observe the way scholars, popular writers and filmmakers from the Victorian era 12 forward have interpreted this evidence. This research borrows an approach from 13 gender studies, using the phenomenon of bisexual erasure to contribute a new 14 understanding for missing information regarding the relationship between Alexander 15 and his life-partner Hephaestion. In Greek and Macedonian society, pederasty was the 16 norm, and boys and men did not have relations with others of the same age because 17 there was almost always a financial and power difference. Hephaestion was taller and 18 more handsome than Alexander, so it might have appeared that he held the power in 19 their relationship. The hypothesis put forward here suggests that writers have erased 20 the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship 21 did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian 22 culture or was no longer socially acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient 23 historians. Ancient biographers may have conducted censorship to conceal any 24 implication of femininity or submissiveness in this relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • VU Research Portal
    VU Research Portal The impact of empire on market prices in Babylon Pirngruber, R. 2012 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in VU Research Portal citation for published version (APA) Pirngruber, R. (2012). The impact of empire on market prices in Babylon: in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 - 140 B.C. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. E-mail address: [email protected] Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE ON MARKET PRICES IN BABYLON in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 – 140 B.C. R. Pirngruber VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE ON MARKET PRICES IN BABYLON in the Late Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, ca. 400 – 140 B.C. ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Influence of Achaemenid Persia on Fourth-Century and Early Hellenistic Greek Tyranny
    THE INFLUENCE OF ACHAEMENID PERSIA ON FOURTH-CENTURY AND EARLY HELLENISTIC GREEK TYRANNY Miles Lester-Pearson A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2015 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11826 This item is protected by original copyright The influence of Achaemenid Persia on fourth-century and early Hellenistic Greek tyranny Miles Lester-Pearson This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews Submitted February 2015 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Miles Lester-Pearson, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 88,000 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me, or principally by myself in collaboration with others as acknowledged, and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2010 and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in September 2011; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2010 and 2015. Date: Signature of Candidate: 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Quipment of Georgios Maniakes and His Army According to the Skylitzes Matritensis
    ΠΟΡΦΥΡΑ da un’idea di Nicola Bergamo “Saranno come fiori che noi coglieremo nei prati per abbellire l’impero d’uno splendore incomparabile. Come specchio levigato di perfetta limpidezza, prezioso ornamento che noi collocheremo al centro del Palazzo” La prima rivista on-line che tratta in maniera completa il periodo storico dei Romani d’Oriente Anno 2005 Dicembre Supplemento n 4 A Prôtospatharios, Magistros, and Strategos Autokrator of 11th cent. : the equipment of Georgios Maniakes and his army according to the Skylitzes Matritensis miniatures and other artistic sources of the middle Byzantine period. a cura di: Dott. Raffaele D’Amato A Prôtospatharios, Magistros, and Strategos Autokrator of 11th cent. the equipment of Georgios Maniakes and his army according to the Skylitzes Matritensis miniatures and other artistic sources of the middle Byzantine period. At the beginning of the 11th century Byzantium was at the height of its glory. After the victorious conquests of the Emperor Basil II (976-1025), the East-Roman1 Empire regained the sovereignty of the Eastern Mediterranean World and extended from the Armenian Mountains to the Italian Peninsula. Calabria, Puglia and Basilicata formed the South-Italian Provinces, called Themata of Kalavria and Laghouvardhia under the control of an High Imperial Officer, the Katepano. 2But the Empire sought at one time to recover Sicily, held by Arab Egyptian Fatimids, who controlled the island by means of the cadet Dynasty of Kalbits.3 The Prôtospatharios4 Georgios Maniakes was appointed in 1038 by the
    [Show full text]
  • The Coins from the Necropolis "Metlata" Near the Village of Rupite
    margarita ANDONOVA the coins from the necropolis "metlata" near the village of rupite... THE COINS FROM THE NECROPOLIS METLATA NEAR THE VILLAGE "OF RUPITE" (F. MULETAROVO), MUNICIPALITY OF PETRICH by Margarita ANDONOVA, Regional Museum of History– Blagoevgrad This article sets to describe and introduce known as Charon's fee was registered through the in scholarly debate the numismatic data findspots of the coins on the skeleton; specifically, generated during the 1985-1988 archaeological these coins were found near the head, the pelvis, excavations at one of the necropoleis situated in the left arm and the legs. In cremations in situ, the locality "Metlata" near the village of Rupite. coins were placed either inside the grave or in The necropolis belongs to the long-known urns made of stone or clay, as well as in bowls "urban settlement" situated on the southern placed next to them. It is noteworthy that out of slopes of Kozhuh hill, at the confluence of 167 graves, coins were registered only in 52, thus the Strumeshnitsa and Struma Rivers, and accounting for less than 50%. The absence of now identified with Heraclea Sintica. The coins in some graves can probably be attributed archaeological excavations were conducted by to the fact that "in Greek society, there was no Yulia Bozhinova from the Regional Museum of established dogma about the way in which the History, Blagoevgrad. souls of the dead travelled to the realm of Hades" The graves number 167 and are located (Зубарь 1982, 108). According to written sources, within an area of ​​750 m². Coins were found mainly Euripides, it is clear that the deceased in 52 graves, both Hellenistic and Roman, may be accompanied to the underworld not only and 10 coins originate from areas (squares) by Charon, but also by Hermes or Thanatos.
    [Show full text]
  • Περίληψη : Antigonus Monophthalmus (382-301 BC) Was a General of Alexander the Great, the Most Important of the Successors and Founder of the Antigonid Dynasty
    IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Παναγοπούλου Κατερίνα Μετάφραση : Καλογεροπούλου Γεωργία , Καριώρης Παναγιώτης Για παραπομπή : Παναγοπούλου Κατερίνα , "Antigonus I Monophthalmus (One- Eyed)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=7285> Περίληψη : Antigonus Monophthalmus (382-301 BC) was a general of Alexander the Great, the most important of the successors and founder of the Antigonid dynasty. He was the governor of Phrygia and possibly Lydia in Asia Minor. He was appointed ruler of Asia Minor for a short period of time (311 BC) and he was the first of the Diadochoi to assume the royal title along with his son Demetrius I (306 BC). He was killed in the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Τόπος και Χρόνος Γέννησης 382 BC, Macedonia Τόπος και Χρόνος Θανάτου 301 BC, Ipsus Κύρια Ιδιότητα General of Alexander the Great, King 1. Family-Education-Early Years Contemporary to the Macedonian kings Phillip II (359-336 BC) and Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), like all the Diadochoi, Antigonus Monophtphalmus was born in 382 BC and lost his life in the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC.1 His father was called Philip2 and he had three brothers, but only the names of the two are known (Demetrius, Ptolemy).3 His family belonged to the Macedonian aristocracy and he was raised in the wider area of Pella, the capital of Macedonia.4 Hence, he was very well educated and had studied Euripides, Homer, tragic and lyric poetry, rhetoric and philosophy.5 His father lost his life during the defeat of the Macedonian army by the Illyrian invaders, which left Macedonia without a king in 359 BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult
    ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗ ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult Carlos Francis Robinson Bachelor of Arts (Hons. 1) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry Abstract Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult By the early Hellenistic period a trend was emerging in which royal women were deified as Aphrodite. In a unique innovation, Queen Arsinoë II of Egypt (c. 316 – 270 BC) was deified as the maritime Aphrodite, and was associated with the cult titles Euploia, Akraia, and Galenaië. It was the important study of Robert (1966) which identified that the poets Posidippus and Callimachus were honouring Arsinoë II as the maritime Aphrodite. This thesis examines how this new third-century BC cult of ‘Arsinoë Aphrodite’ adopted aspects of Greek cults of the maritime Aphrodite, creating a new derivative cult. The main historical sources for this cult are the epigrams of Posidippus and Callimachus, including a relatively new epigram (Posidippus AB 39) published in 2001. This thesis demonstrates that the new cult of Arsinoë Aphrodite utilised existing traditions, such as: Aphrodite’s role as patron of fleets, the practice of dedications to Aphrodite by admirals, the use of invocations before sailing, and the practice of marine dedications such as shells. In this way the Ptolemies incorporated existing religious traditions into a new form of ruler cult. This study is the first attempt to trace the direct relationship between Ptolemaic ruler cult and existing traditions of the maritime Aphrodite, and deepens our understanding of the strategies of ruler cult adopted in the early Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult. Global and Local Perspectives?
    The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult Global and Local Perspectives? 1 Franca Landucci DOI – 10.7358/erga-2016-002-land AbsTRACT – Demetrius Poliorketes is considered by modern scholars the true founder of ruler cult. In particular the Athenians attributed him several divine honors between 307 and 290 BC. The ancient authors in general consider these honors in a negative perspec- tive, while offering words of appreciation about an ideal sovereignty intended as a glorious form of servitude and embodied in Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes’ son and heir. An analysis of the epigraphic evidences referring to this king leads to the conclusion that Antigonus Gonatas did not officially encourage the worship towards himself. KEYWORDS – Antigonids, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes, Hellenism, ruler cult. Antigonidi, Antigono Gonata, culto del sovrano, Demetrio Poliorcete, ellenismo. Modern scholars consider Demetrius Poliorketes the true founder of ruler cult due to the impressively vast literary tradition on the divine honours bestowed upon this historical figure, especially by Athens, between the late fourth and the early third century BC 2. As evidenced also in modern bib- liography, these honours seem to climax in the celebration of Poliorketes as deus praesens in the well-known ithyphallus dedicated to him by the Athenians around 290 3. Documentation is however pervaded by a tone that is strongly hostile to the granting of such honours. Furthermore, despite the fact that it has been handed down to us through Roman Imperial writers like Diodorus, Plutarch and Athenaeus, the tradition reflects a tendency contemporary to the age of the Diadochi, since these same authors refer, often explicitly, to a 1 All dates are BC, unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Macedonische Koningen in Beeld De Representatie Van De Macedonische Koningen Amyntas III, Philippus II, Alexander III En Demetrios I in Kunst, Architectuur En Munten
    Macedonische Koningen in Beeld De representatie van de Macedonische koningen Amyntas III, Philippus II, Alexander III en Demetrios I in kunst, architectuur en munten Student: Marinde Hiemstra Studentnummer: 3666581 Docent: F. van den Eijnde Cursus: Onderzoeksseminar III Universiteit Utrecht Maart 2013 Inhoudsopgave Inleiding......................................................................................................................................2 Amyntas III.................................................................................................................................5 Philippus II.................................................................................................................................8 Alexander III 'de Grote'............................................................................................................12 Demetrios I 'Poliorketes'...........................................................................................................16 Conclusie..................................................................................................................................20 Literatuurlijst............................................................................................................................23 1 Art and architecture are mirrors of a society. They reflect the state of its values, especially in times of crisis or transition. ~ P. Zanker1. Inleiding In 338 voor Christus gaf Philippus II van Macedonië opdracht om een rond gebouw neer te zetten naast de
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of the Hellenistic World
    Part I THE MAKING OF THE HELLENISTIC WORLD K2 cch01.inddh01.indd 1111 99/14/2007/14/2007 55:03:23:03:23 PPMM K2 cch01.inddh01.indd 1122 99/14/2007/14/2007 55:03:23:03:23 PPMM 1 First Steps 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 June 323 Death of Alexander the Great; outbreak of Lamian War 322 Battle of Krannon; end of Lamian War 320 Death of Perdikkas in Egypt; settlement of Triparadeisos 319 Death of Antipater 317 Return of Olympias to Macedonia; deaths of Philip Arrhidaios and Eurydike 316/15 Death of Eumenes of Kardia in Iran 314 Antigonos’ declaration of Tyre; fi rst coalition war (Kas- sander, Lysimachos, and Ptolemy against Antigonos) 312 Battle of Gaza; Seleukos retakes Babylon 311 Treaty ends coalition war 310 Deaths of Alexander IV and Roxane I From Babylon to Triparadeisos The sudden death of the Macedonian king Alexander, far away from home at Babylon in Mesopotamia on June 10, 323, caught the world he ruled fully unprepared for the ensuing crisis. Only two of the men who founded the dynas- ties of kings which dominated the history of the Hellenistic world were even present at Babylon when he died, and only one of them was suffi ciently promi- nent among the offi cers who assembled to debate the future to be given an independent provincial command: Ptolemy, now in his early forties, was appointed to distant Egypt (though with Alexander’s established governor, Kleomenes, as his offi cial deputy). Seleukos, also present at Babylon, but some K2 cch01.inddh01.indd 1133 99/14/2007/14/2007 55:03:23:03:23 PPMM 14 PART I THE MAKING OF THE HELLENISTIC WORLD ten years younger, became cavalry commander in the central government, a post which under Alexander had been equivalent to the king’s deputy but now was envisaged as being purely military.
    [Show full text]