by David Grant
Leonnatus did attempt to lure Eumenes into the scheme and promised to reconcile him with Hecataeus, the Cardian tyrant. Cardia had been founded on the Thracian Chersonese (today’s Gallipoli peninsula) by settlers from the Greek city of Miletus (the founder of some ninety other settlements) and Clazomenae in the 7th century BCE. Philip II, who had already concluded a treaty of friendship with Cardia in 352 BCE, entered the picture more meaningfully in 343 BCE when Attic settlers arrived; unable to settle a boundary dispute by arbitration, he sent in troops to face Diopeithes’ Attic mercenaries. References in Demosthenes’ speeches confirm its subsequent independence from Athens, and Hecataeus, Philip’s agent, might have been installed then.161 The likelihood of Eumenes accepting the offer of reconciliation was slim as ‘hereditary distrust and political differences’ existed, and Eumenes had repeatedly asked Alexander to remove Hecataeus.162
Although Leonnatus had travelled to Phrygia to meet Eumenes, Nepos claimed he attempted to kill the uncooperative Cardian who immediately decamped in the night with 300 cavalry, 200 armed camp followers and with the enormous sum of 5,000 talents, which, we assume, had been provided to Eumenes (from Cyinda?) by Perdiccas for the planned conquest of Cappadocia; that sum alone must have been a tempting target.163 Withdrawing from the ‘capricious man’ of ‘rash impulses’, Eumenes reported Leonnatus’ intentions to the chiliarch, gaining great influence with Perdiccas in the process. Diodorus’ account was more compressed: Leonnatus’ departure was in response to Antipater’s request for assistance in the Lamian War, but this nevertheless defied Perdiccas’ orders – that he assist Eumenes.
Moreover, Leonnatus had been promised another of the old regent’s daughters no doubt in return for that help. His early death in the marshes of Thessaly was an outcome that apparently made Antipater ‘rejoice’; it not only disabled Leonnatus’ possible union with Cleopatra, but also saved the regent a useful daughter. All this made the deceased Leonnatus an easy target for Eumenes, and it opened up his satrapies (we propose he inherited a region far greater than Hellespontine Phrygia) for coalition assimilation.164
Next on the guilty list is the vocal Meleager, the most important infantry officer at Babylon (and, briefly, Perdiccas’ hyparchos) and who had been executed for insurrection. He could be safely incriminated by the Pamphlet to good effect. The Will proposed he was the inheritor of Coele-Syria rather than Laomedon of Mytilene, though this was not philanthropy at work. Soon after Laomedon’s reconfirmation to the region at Triparadeisus (as extant texts have Laomedan originally appointed at Babylon), Ptolemy had tried to buy him out of the province;165 Ptolemy knew the strategic value of fortifying the route to Egypt whose borders had been recently tested by Perdiccas’ invasion. Laomedon, a hetairos at the Pellan court and by now fluent in Persian, declined, and Ptolemy sent his general, Nicanor, to commence military operations which resulted in his capture. Laomedon managed to bribe his guards and escape to join Alcetas and the Perdiccan remnants in Caria.166 They were finally cornered at Cretopolis and captured after fierce resistance. Laomedon may well have perished there for he was never mentioned again.
Branding the rebellious Meleager guilty, and yet posing him as the original satrap of Coele-Syria, justified both his execution by Perdiccas, and Ptolemy’s annexation of the region, for it emphasised that Laomedon had not been the king’s choice. The olive branch being proffered to Ptolemy was more of an olive bough, for it is difficult to imagine that Meleager would have challenged Perdiccas at Babylon ‘on behalf of the passed-over infantryman’ had he genuinely inherited the governorship of the influential region.
The prominent Menander based in Lydia was named with the guilty. Menander’s long and well-attested tenure of the province (since 331 BCE) was dismantled when Perdiccas provided Cleopatra with a role in its governance at Sardis. He was sidelined again by Antipater at Triparadeisus and replaced by White Cleitus. As a result, the orphaned Menander became a useful Antigonid tool and we might imagine with the promise of reinstatement.167 He had been hot on Eumenes’ heels in his flight from Nora to Cilicia, and the Orcynian baggage-train charade at Menander’s expense had no doubt added impetus to the chase. Though referred to as an ‘old friend’ of Eumenes by Plutarch (which may again simply mean ‘former colleague’), Menander’s early support for Antigonus and his reporting of the plan to see Perdiccas wed to Cleopatra, suggested the greater friendships resided on the other side of the Macedonian divide.168 With no prospect of turning him, Eumenes branded Menander a traitor and may have scratched any reference to Lydia from the Will, as the region does not appear in the extant Will texts. He was never mentioned in action again, though Lydian troops did feature in later battles; his more enduring legacy was a painting by Apelles.169
Nearchus also suffered at the hands of the Pamphleteers. He was sufficiently distinguished by his naval voyage and his latter-day friendship with Alexander to have featured prominently in empire governance, so it is unlikely he would have been bypassed in the king’s original Will.170 Although the campaign governors were predominantly Macedonian, a few select Greeks had been chosen as satraps, though, notably, none of them originated from the mainland: Laomedon came from Mytilene and Stasander along with Stasanor were both Cypriots by birth. Nearchus, born on Crete – though his former residence of Amphipolis was now situated in an expanded Macedonia – had been appointed to Lycia and Pamphylia in the early campaign. Lycia would have been his most obvious satrapal inheritance for it would explain his mission there in 319/318 BCE to recover Telmessus, its largest city (modern Fethiye), though Polyaenus provided no date to this particular action.171 Nearchus may additionally have been instrumental in establishing Cretopolis, the Cretan city in the strategic Telmessus passes linking Phrygia, Lycaonia and Cappadocia.172
What is beyond conjecture is his loyalty to Antigonus and Demetrius in campaigns that suggest he was steadfastly hostile to Ptolemy; perhaps this stemmed from their alleged conflicting interests in the Assembly at Babylon.173 Nearchus fell on the Pamphlet’s guilty list and he was targeted for removal, and any satrapal inheritance was scrubbed from history too. What became of him later in life is unknown; archaeologists scramble to reveal whether he and other prominent campaign figures were amongst the skeletons recently exhumed from the once magnificent Kasta Hill tomb at Amphipolis.174
Stasanor of Soli was implicated in the conspiracy as part of Eumenes’ attack on Peithon, under whose mandate we propose the upper satrapies fell, thus his under-satraps were fair game too. There does seem to have been some confusion, however, between him and his neighbour, Stasander. Both were Greek Cypriots who (confusingly or mistakenly) exchanged the satrapies granted them at Babylon and Triparadeisus. Though Stasander sent troops and supported Eumenes in person at Paraetacene, Stasanor’s presence was not mentioned at all.175 Antigonus allowed Stasanor to retain Bactria-Sogdia after Eumenes’ death, though Diodorus suggested that was simply due to the region’s remoteness.
That acquiescence by Antigonus seems unlikely if the satrap had openly opposed him from what was a region renowned for effective fighters; from there Spitamenes had, for example, been bitterly opposed to Alexander to the end, rejecting honourable defeat and causing significant trouble for the Macedonian forces. Diodorus reported that over 120,000 Sogdians were killed in three successive revolts; this was a dangerous part of the empire unless its satrap was benign, and Antigonus certainly had generals capable of removing Stasanor if a threat, once Eumenes’ forces had been assimilated.176 Stasanor’s good conduct towards the inhabitants of his region was clearly stated, tying in with what we read of his successful governance under Alexander; his distant neutrality seems to have allayed any fears Antigonus might have harboured.177
The most likely identification for the next plotter, Philotas (of the many so-named men associated with the campaign), is the Babylon-nominated satrap of Cilicia. Perdiccas had removed him in 320/321 BCE due to his well-attested friendship with Craterus, and he installed Philoxenus, his own man. That evic
tion would have sat uncomfortably with Antigenes, commander of the Silver Shields, and with the other remaining veterans Perdiccas had enrolled into the royal army on the way to attacking Egypt. Philotas was not reinstated at Triparadeisus (possibly due to his staunch support for the ‘expansionist’ Antigonus) where the apparently ‘undistinguished’ (and no doubt compliant) Philoxenus was reconfirmed to the province. Philotas was enrolled into Antigonus’ ranks by 318 BCE, perhaps due to his experience in the region, and once again with the likely prospect of reinstatement. Philotas attempted to lure the Argyraspides from Eumenes in Cilicia and that may well have sealed his fate in the Pamphlet.178
We are on softer ground with the identifications of the less prominent banqueters because we are dealing with textual corruptions alongside a dearth of career information, and so focusing on them too sharply would to blur our perspective. Some names appear historical and broad deductions may be made.
If Polydorus can be identified as the physician from Teos, then it appears he was at some point a court guest of Antipater and thus was likely sympathetic (at that stage) to the Cassander-backing Antigonus. If this is a corruption of ‘Polydamas’ then he was possibly the prominent Thessalian hetairos with Craterus in Cilicia.179 As far as Ariston, his Pharsalian origins were stated, and that makes him Thessalian with roots that might link him to Medius of Larissa as well. If it was the same Ariston who eventually delivered Craterus’ remains to Antipater’s daughter Phila, then his allegiance may well have resided with the opposing faction.180
Two Philips (possibly an engineer and a physician) are referred to in corrupted texts; one obvious identification is the brother of Cassander and Iolaos, thus he was another of the paides basilikoi, the royal pages and central to the plot, a role that was supported by his mention in Justin’s account.181 The other Philip is potentially the satrap of Parthia who was later killed by Peithon, but then assumed by the pamphleteers to be under his sway as part of his upper satrapy governance. The origins of a ‘Philip the physician’ might have come about on the back of earlier allegations of poisoning linked to Alexander’s trusted doctor. But little save conjecture is known of Heracleides the Thracian; he may even have operated in Greece under the command of Cassander, and that could point to his being added to the list by Olympias.182
PEUCESTAS, PERSEPOLIS AND PAMPHLET PUBLICATION DATES
A key reference in dating the Pamphlet’s emergence is Plutarch’s claim that it was some five years after Alexander’s death that the conspiracy allegations first hit Greece (T10).183 Although this is a less than clinical chronological guide, Eumenes’ presence in Cilicia through the winter of 318 BCE becomes an attractive publication period when correspondence with Olympias was evidently taking place.
At this point, Seleucus’ potential role in the emerging coalition needs explanation, because at first glance he does not appear in the list of Babylon banqueters. Diodorus never named him as one of Perdiccas’ assassins in Egypt, nor is he amongst those Ptolemy felt indebted to after the event – the men then elevated to guardians of the kings.184 In which case, we might suppose Eumenes had no cause to incriminate him; this would explain why he could have credibly solicited Seleucus’ support when wintering in Babylonia in 317 BCE, although Peithon’s presence would have undermined the negotiations.185
Nepos, on the other hand, did cite Seleucus as present in Egypt, and in the ϒ recension of the Romance Seleucus does appear at Medius’ party, though this text is derived from a far later (post-7th century) embellished manuscript. His attendance may also be supported by an otherwise unattested ‘Europius’ in the Armenian version of the Romance as this could be a reference to Seleucus’ ethnic, for he was most likely born in Europus near the Axius River in Macedonia.186 If Eumenes was implicating Seleucus in Alexander’s death, a Cilicia-based early Pamphlet release date is unsupportable, because we cannot imagine Eumenes making overtures in 317 BCE if the accusations were already out.
What confounds historians is the observation that the Pamphlet Will bestowed Babylonia on Seleucus, as this appears to be another olive branch, because the mainstream texts (we propose Hieronymus-derived) claim Seleucus was only granted the province at Triparadeisus some three years on, either for his part in Perdiccas’ execution, or for his defending Antipater against the angry mob being whipped up by Eurydice; that was the first of two ‘mutinies’ over back-pay Antipater would see before re-crossing the Hellespont.187 Heckel has logically argued that the Pamphlet must therefore have a terminus post quem of May 320 BCE (thus Triparadeisus) for its author to have witnessed Seleucus’ appointment. To the contrary, we argue that Babylonia was part of Seleucus’ original and genuine Will-sanctioned strategia, and not a coalition ‘gift’, in which case such a prominent post could hardly be hidden by the architects of the Pamphlet now that Seleucus was back there governing.188
But recalling Plutarch’s chronology, and following what Carney has termed a great public ‘lamentation’ in Macedonia which would have heralded in the Pamphlet’s release, we must consider how early Olympias could have ‘glutted her rage with atrocities’ from years of pent-up Antipatrid hatred,189 because that was supposed to coincide: the Pamphlet’s accusation would vindicate Olympias’ revenge killings, and no doubt the murders were supposed to imply that the Pamphlet content was genuine.190
This could have only taken place once Olympias had re-established herself in Pella after defeating and executing Eurydice and Philip III; so October 317 BCE or later if we adhere to Diodorus’ statement on the length of the king’s reign.191 Release of the Pamphlet from Cilicia in late 318 BCE is perhaps still supportable, as news took time to travel, but it appears to be dangerously early, that is unless Olympias did imprudently (and so against Eumenes’ advice) spread allegations of regicide when she was still in Epirus.192 It would have been an unwise move that broadcast her intent, though we should ponder whether it was exactly these allegations that swayed the Cassander-backed army of Eurydice to Olympias’ cause when she finally marched on Pella.
A more viable date for the Pamphlet’s release would be when, or shortly before, Eumenes arrived in Persepolis and attempted to wrest command of the eastern coalition from Peucestas in the winter of 317 BCE, as by then Seleucus and Peithon had already united against him, and their Pamphlet incrimination (assuming Seleucus’ name was present on the guilty list) would have logically followed.193 Moreover, it was here that Eumenes’ faked letter from Orontes ‘arrived’, and here that Eumenes brought false charges against Sibyrtius. Had the Persian satraps not already combined under Peucestas and had they not outnumbered Eumenes’ own men, Eumenes may well have terminated the prominent Persian-speaking former Bodyguard right there.
This later release date requires that Eumenes was still hoping that Ptolemy and Lysimachus might join his cause; they had been meddlesome to his plans but no open hostilities had taken place. Eumenes’ attempt to include them in an anti-Antigonus coalition was not altogether unrealistic considering Antigonus’ rising power, for he was by then a formidable threat to any Asian satrap. Some two years on, Ptolemy was indeed assisting Seleucus in his bid to oust Antigonus from Babylonia, for with Eumenes’ death came the unsuccessful demands from Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander for a share of Asia Minor (the return of Babylon was required for Seleucus) and, curiously, Syria, along with the accumulated treasure seized in the war.194
If there still exist various other scenarios that could suit the Pamphlet’s release, we do now have a broad terminus post quem: Eumenes’ departure from Nora in spring 318 BCE, with a more obvious terminus ante quem established by his death in early 315 BCE or at Olympias’ execution later the same year.
A depiction of Olympias on a large gold medallion commissioned to honour the Roman emperor Caracalla and representing him as a descendant of Alexander. The back (not shown) features a nereid (sea nymph), perhaps Thetis, the mother of Achilles, riding on a hippocamp, a mythical sea creature. Thus the medallion forms part of a double comparison: Caracalla is c
onnected to Alexander, whilst Alexander is linked to Achilles. Found at Aboukir in Upper Egypt as part of a hoard of twenty similar medallions, they may originate from the mints at Ephesus or Perinthus. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore.
THE COMPLEX HYPOKEIMENA
The Pamphlet fired warning shots across the bows of the remaining satraps and their prominent supporting officers, whose guilt in Alexander’s death, if not specifically mentioned, could be brought into question by association: those in Cilicia with Craterus, for example. That was Eumenes’ own silent siegecraft, a clever intrigue that left doors open for future alliances, but with safety catches on.
If Olympias’ hatred for her opponents is palpable, we should not underestimate Eumenes’ own hunger for revenge, having been placed on a proscription list with fifty Perdiccan supporters. Reading the later Roman proscriptions demanded by Sulla in 82 BCE once he was appointed dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae causa (dictator for writing the laws and restoring the state) makes for disturbing reading, as do the death lists of Antony and Octavian that heralded in the Second Triumvirate. That had been a period punctuated by avaritas, crudelitas and per vim (‘by violence’) if the Periochae preserving Livy’s account can be relied on. The unbridled menace of a death list is shocking in an environment where political balances and voices of reason from such as Cicero (who was invited by Caesar to join the first coalition) were supposed to prevent tyranny, but they had this early Hellenistic example to draw from. Now, through the shockwave of the Pamphlet, Eumenes and Olympias were effectively returning the compliment with its widespread accusations of treason.
The Pamphlet was clearly a one-time bid for a huge prize: the lion’s share of Asia should Antigonus fall, and complete control of Pella if Cassander could be silenced. But its virulence would mean a death sentence for both of its architects should the gambit fail, and so Eumenes and Olympias packed it with layers of purpose. The guilty and the innocent, and those wedded to Argead royalty were just the more prominent front lines of deeper, subtler ranks. The Pamphlet was built on complex hypokeimena, the political substrates lying beneath, some probably still eluding us today. Others are more obvious and they fit their joint predicament. The first was Perdiccas’ position of authority in the Will: