Contingency plans

[alejandro]

Hi Companions.

I read a few weeks ago that one of the main arguments for Alexander death being "non-natural" (ie, poison theory) is that, unlike previous experiences, the empire didn't crumble down and no civil war exploded, but rather the junta of marshals was established and the empire was quite meticulously divided among the big shots (I think it was a Bosworth's article).

My point is, is this really a strong enough argument in favour of a "marshals' complot"? I was just wondering about the other situations where a similar scenario would have arised. In particular, when Alexander was injured in the Mallian town and the part of the army that was not with him got the rumour he was dead. Very likely, the big names in the camp would meet, analyse their position (and individual positions), grope for possible alliances, etc. Even those with Alexander must have certainly thought of contingency plans. Basically, what I mean, is that some kind of agreement/convergence is very likely to have been achieved, at least as a contingency plan in the case Alexander died. Perdikkas and Hephaistion are usually thought to be in good terms, while the opposite was true between Hephaistion and Eumenes/Krateros. One can only expect that alliances/friendships would be woven at times like these.

Other similar situations where Alexander was close to death are the Tarsus incident and the one in Scythia. The first was quite early in the campaign, and probably if Alexander had died there, I would expect the Macedonians to content with getting up to that point, strengthen their hold in Asia Minor, and return home. The second was not as bad(the risk of death was lower, compared to the other two), but is closer to the situation in India: a remote and hostile place and a long march back home. Again, there are elements here that could lead to contingency plans.

Finally, Alexander didn't die suddenly, but agonized for several days, again allowing for a more ordered transition. Interesting enough, many of the main actors in Scythia and India were not in Babylon (Hephaistion, Krateros, Koinos) and relatively minor figures raised to notoriety (Eumenes, Seleukos), and probably alliances shifted and plans were adjusted to the situtation.

In summary, what I just want to say is that the idea of a deliberate marshals' plot to assassinate Alexander based on how (relatively) quiet the situation was after his death seems not too appealing, as there were many occasions (including the several days of agony) were the marshals could have set some contingency plans.

That is my opinion at least. Comments?

All the best,
Alejandro

[marcus]

Hi Alejandro,

Interesting ideas. As it is, I don't believe that there was a 'marshals' plot' to assassinate Alexander anyway.

However, I'm not sure that there really was such a peaceful transition - if you recall, the infantry and the cavalry (broadly speaking) absolutely disagreed, to begin with, on who should rule after the king's death, and the infantry only really calmed down once their ringleaders were executed. Even then, once the empire had been divided up in the first settlement, things were hardly peaceful.

(Writing this very quickly while I'm working on something else, so I can't put more detail in for the moment. But I wanted to give an initial response.)

ATB

[dean]

Hello,

Wasn't it Ptolemy who, some time after Alexander's death, got all the heavy weights of the empire together and placed the king's throne, robes, and sceptre etc. in the midst of them, so they would feel that Alexander was once more back amongst them. Sort of like saying, while Alexander was there, there would be a cessation for a short while at least, of hostilities? Such was the effect that Alexander had on the marshalls even after his death

Best regards,
Dean.

[Paralus]

That might have been Eumenes. Well, at least he certainly did it - set up the kings "command tent" and all. Calmed the temper of his staff in Iran whilst being shadowed (to the death) by Antigonus.

He was a fair showman - even down to fake letters of appointment from "back home".

Never trust a Greek bearing furniture.....

[alejandro]

Hi there,

I found the article: it is indeed Bosworth: The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda. The last paragraph summarizes his hypothesis, if anyone is interested

Marcus,

I don't believe in the marshals' plot either (though it leads to a more "Hollywood-esque" death than an untimely illness), because of what I mentioned in my first message. But I do think the transition was rather smooth. True, there was some turmoil immediately after Alexander's death, but the marshals where on the same side all the time, and quenched it in almost no time. I should have mentioned, however, that Bosworth calls the "transition period" the one up to the time when Perdikkas rejects Antipater's daughter in order to marry Kleopatra, a time during which the body of marshals acted more or less as a unit. After that, war erupted all over the place, but until then relative peace was in place. One could say that the marshals agreed on a truce until things settled, and once the situation got a bit clearer, they embarked on hostility plans. But then, that's probably the most likely agreement that they could have reached then, don't you think? "Let's wait and see" was good for everyone, since no one had an obvious advantage over the rest.
My criticism of Bosworth's hypothesis is not about the smoothness of the transition, but about the causes of it. Bosworth seems to hint that it was the result of a plot to kill Alexander, while I think it was simply the result of some discussions held in previous occasions (Mallian town, Scythia) and during the long agony period.

All the best,
Alejandro

[amyntoros]

Hi Alejandro,

(I want to begin by saying that edited your post only to change the long printed URL to a link so that the text on these posts doesn not disappear off the right hand side of the page. Unfortunately, I don't have access to JSTOR so I was unable to view the article.)

One could say that the marshals agreed on a truce until things settled, and once the situation got a bit clearer, they embarked on hostility plans. But then, that's probably the most likely agreement that they could have reached then, don't you think? "Let's wait and see" was good for everyone, since no one had an obvious advantage over the rest.

My criticism of Bosworth's hypothesis is not about the smoothness of the transition, but about the causes of it. Bosworth seems to hint that it was the result of a plot to kill Alexander, while I think it was simply the result of some discussions held in previous occasions (Mallian town, Scythia) and during the long agony period.

There are so many ways to look at this, and although I am no expert on the period of the Successors I will throw in my two cents worth. I certainly do not feel that the appearance of cooperation supports a poisoning plot, but my own opinion is that the transition went smoothly not because of previous discussions and contingency plans, but because the marshals were sensible enough to know they needed to simulate cooperation with one another until each felt he was in a position to strike out for himself. Alliances held as long as they were needed, or until an individual made a move for more power. Maybe I am being a little cynical, but I see the smoothness of the transition as no more than the apparent calm before an attack in shark infested waters. Sharks will circle first, waiting for movement of some kind. Meleager thought his position was strong so he made an early move and the result was that he was torn to pieces. Then the rest circled again; willing to destroy each other, if necessary, to get to the prize.

IMO, this would have happened no matter what the cause of Alexanders death or where he died.

Best regards,

[alejandro]

Hi Amyntoros,

Thank you for the editing! If you want, I can send you the paper by email (just send me your address).

Regarding the smoothness of transition, I like your analogy with the shark attack, and I agree with it.

You suggest that it would have arised regardless of the place and cause of death, and I can see your point. But I think that a sudden and unexpected death, without previous near-death experiences (no, i don't mean the light at the end of the tunnel , but the Mallian or Scythian incidents), and in a foreign land, could have lead to a much more volatile situation. That's actually one of Bosworth's points: that in Macedonian history before Alexander, similar situations led to ferocious civil war.

My point is that such scenario was greatly mitigated by the Mallian and Scythian experiences as well as the long agony in Babylon, which allowed the marshals to make some kind of plans/ provisions. True they were ruthless officers. But they were capable as well: they knew they couldn't gamble for the empire just hours after Alexander's death, and so your hypothesis of a smooth transition makes sense. But because of the same reason, I would claim that the previous incidents made them aware of the weakness of their position in the event of Alexander dying without a clearly determined and/or strong heir, and so I would only expect them to have discussed contingency plans then, as well as tested potential allies.

In summary, my position is that previous experiences allowed for some preliminary talks that made transition smoother, even more than it would have been the case without them. Of course, the ultimate goal of these alliances was the overall control of the whole empire, but they needed the truce until they gathered enough forces as to attempt the strike. The trigger for these attempts are, in my view, Ptolemaios' snatch of Alexander's beer (that offered Perdikkas a casus belli againt him) and Perdikkas rejection of Antipater's daughter in order to marry Kleopatra.

All the best,
Alejandro

[amyntoros]

Hello Alejandro,

Thanks for the offer on the article. I'll send you my email address by Private Message. (Not that I'm hiding it from anyone here, but there have been previous occasions when spammers have farmed email addresses from this site.)

My point is that such scenario was greatly mitigated by the Mallian and Scythian experiences as well as the long agony in Babylon, which allowed the marshals to make some kind of plans/ provisions. True they were ruthless officers. But they were capable as well: they knew they couldn't gamble for the empire just hours after Alexander's death, and so your hypothesis of a smooth transition makes sense. But because of the same reason, I would claim that the previous incidents made them aware of the weakness of their position in the event of Alexander dying without a clearly determined and/or strong heir, and so I would only expect them to have discussed contingency plans then, as well as tested potential allies.

It's a good point that makes sense when looking at events retrospectively, but I still doubt the practicality of the scenario. The way I see it, especially after the Philotas affair and the pages conspiracy, Alexander would have been extremely wary of any discussion of what would happen after his death unless he had initiated it. Imagine, for example, if, say, Antigonus and Lysimachus decided to test an alliance and had been overheard secretively discussing what territories they might rule once Alexander was dead! Let them try to explain to Alexander and the other Friends that they were only making contingency plans!

I think Alexander must have given some thought as to who might rule if he was unexpectedly killed, especially (as you have said) after he had nearly died a couple of times. However, while Hephaistion was still alive he must have figured prominently in Alexander's plans - and possibly Perdiccas as well as he is often linked with Hephaistion and it is presumed therefore that they got along. We'll never know whether confidential meetings limited to one or two people took place, or whether the others were also informed, but I simply can't imagine any discussions that didn't involve Alexander even after the death of Hephaistion.

I know it's difficult to believe that the Marshals could have gathered together and thrashed out a smooth transition in the few hours following Alexander's death. It isn't, however, impossible, and when needs must . . .

Best regards,

[alejandro]

Hi Amyntoros,

Sure, let me know your address and I'll send it to you.

Yeah, I totally agree that any discussion of possible plans for after Alexander's death while he was alive would have been treasonous (or the rest of the marshals will certainly make it look like it was anyway!). But I didn't mean anything like that. I just think that, facing the very likely death of Alexander in Scythia/Mallian town, they must have considered what to do then. Maybe calling them "plans" is not the right thing to do. They were probably just discussions where, among the "is he okay?" and "what is the last report from the doctors?" they also asked "what should we do in the meantime?". That is, they were not "planning" for the next year or so, and they definitely didn't plan the division of the empire (though probably it was in their minds as well), but just considered how to keep the soldiers united, avoid desertions and riots, keep the foreign troops at bay, organize the return to "civilization", etc. More "down-to-earth" matters, not high-level politics.

My thesis is simply that these previous "experiments" in close-to-death situations made the handling of the transition after the actual death much less problematic than it could have been.

But, as so often happens, we will probably never know what really happened.

Best,
Alejandro

[amyntoros]

Sure, let me know your address and I'll send it to you.

My message should be in your inbox - click on the "You have one new message" link at the top of the forum page and you should be able to open it.

My thesis is simply that these previous "experiments" in close-to-death situations made the handling of the transition after the actual death much less problematic than it could have been.

Yes, I understand this reasoning - and it is remarkable how quickly they seemed to agree on who would administer each part of the empire. That does support the idea that they'd at least thought about it previously, although they could have been talking about it for days if they realized that Alexander was really dying.

Best regards,

[jan]

Interesting posts here, but one of the things that struck me interesting when I read the Persian story about Alexander were all the prophecies made to Alexander that he would die, and that he seemingly knew it. Again, at this moment, I am forgetting the title and author of the book which I have mentioned already here, but the point in that tale is that Alexander had many forewarnings of his death...and that it doesn't really matter if it is death due to natural causes or to murderous plots, he was supposedly forewarned.

My real question in that is why is that the Persians appear to tell one story while the Greeks and Romans tell another...I find that most interesting and fascinating to consider that each group has its own version which it favors.

[dean]

Hello,

Interesting posts here, but one of the things that struck me interesting when I read the Persian story about Alexander were all the prophecies made to Alexander that he would die, and that he seemingly knew it.

I am unaware of the Persian story. The Persian side was never told. Do we have a Persian Arrian?

Best wishes,
Dean

[marcus]

My real question in that is why is that the Persians appear to tell one story while the Greeks and Romans tell another...I find that most interesting and fascinating to consider that each group has its own version which it favors.

But in the Greek and Latin histories Alexander does receive a number of warnings and portents. They might not (all) explicitly say "you're going to die"; but some of them are fairly unambiguous.

I have never had the chance to read the Persian stories; but also I think that we are talking here about medieval Persian versions, which carry a lot of Persian Romance elements, and were also (if I recall correctly) adaptations of the Greek Alexander Romance anyway ... so it isn't as if there is a totally separate Persian version of the story. The medieval 'Persians' are very, very different from the Achaemenid Persians.

ATB

[agesilaos]

The Marshals must have been used to co-operating throughout the campaign; that there was no concerted plot or contingency plan can be shown by the disparate plans offered by the various nobles (it is here that Ptolemy suggests Eumenes later suggestion - though only in Curtius, I think) and also Meleager's complaint that Perdikkas is seeking to rule through the Guardianship. The fracture of power and conflict ensuing brought the Marshals substantially together in extremis, the infantry were seditious and the Greeks in the Upper Satrapies on the march and the Lamian War was brewing; all this in enemy heartland. Nor could any real settlement be brokered without Antipater and Krateros being involved, Antigonos too was not at Babylon. The situation only stabilised once Antipater assumed the Guardianship and then only til his death. I think it was very much a case of necessity forcing ad hoc agreements under the aegis of Perdikkas' de facto influence, the receipt of Alexander's ring and his chiliarchy.

[Tantalus]

Interesting posts here, but one of the things that struck me interesting when I read the Persian story about Alexander were all the prophecies made to Alexander that he would die, and that he seemingly knew it. Again, at this moment, I am forgetting the title and author of the book....

Maybe this is what you read?

Alexander's final days: a Babylonian perspective

It gives the Babylonian astronomer's reasons for their warnings to Alexander. It's a very fascinating article.

What I also found interesting is the possible explanation for the strange incident about the man who put on Alexander's mantle and diadem and sat on on the throne.