It attracted huge numbers to the banner of Heracles.
It was a fully fledged popular rebellion with the backing of the most powerful Macedonians and it should have succeeded all else being equal.
.... the attempt to place Heracles on the throne was a popular uprising. It is self-evident from the fact that Polyperchon managed to assemble a large enough army actually to invade Macedon and confront Cassander on behalf of Alexander's son.
Presumably by “huge numbers” you are referring to the fact that Polyperchon’s non-Macedonian army, made up of Peloponnesians, mercenaries and Aetolians, was said to number some 20,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry [ Diod XX.20.3] – and probably the bulk of these will have been the army of the Aetolian league.
“Popular uprising” means a rebellion by the general population, or at least a significant portion of it. Paralus is entirely right to point out that not only was there no ‘popular uprising’, but no uprising at all, not even from the erstwhile philoi/friends Polyperchon wrote to and doubtless attempted to bribe. There is no evidence that any of "the most powerful Macedonians" came out in support of Polyperchon - it is the product of an over active imagination!
Nor could there be such a thing as a ‘popular uprising’, for no such thing existed in the ancient Mediterranean world. There was no Media to inform the general population of events or what was going on, nor did any organisation capable of arranging a ‘popular uprising’ exist. To use this sort of terminology demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand ancient societies generally, and Macedonia’s in particular. A village might hear of past events from passing travellers and suchlike, but ‘Kassander’ or ‘Polyperchon’ were largely just names to the populace, who knew little or nothing about them beyond seeing their likenesses on coinage, or learning of some general proclamation. Their loyalties were to their mountain valley communities, or their urban civic ones – i.e clan and tribal loyalties, and the local aristocrats in charge of them. It was these men the general population followed in their ignorance, whomever they chose to support – in this case Kassander. There was no ‘popular’ anything throughout Macedon. Furthermore, there was considerable uncertainty as to whether ‘Heracles’ really was a bastard of Alexander’s or just some pretender produced by Antigonus ( as argued by Tarn and others). Nor did Polyperchon and his foreign army actually invade Macedon, but got no further than the mountainous Tymphaeum region in Eastern Epirus, where he was confronted by Cassander and the Macedonian army. [not the other way around: Diod XX.28 ff]]
There is NO contradiction whatsoever between calling the attempt to install Heracles on the throne of Macedon both an invasion and a popular uprising, just as there would be no such contradiction in the case of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
This merely shows that your knowledge of 18 C British history is as poor as your general knowledge of Macedonian and Hellenistic history. Ironically, your analogy is an apt one however, for there was no ‘popular uprising’ in favour of Charles Stuart either!! Instead the ’45 rebellion was the last sputter of the civil war between Stuarts and Hanoverians, which had been long lost – and cemented by the Act of Union between England and Scotland of 1707. Only the mad Stuarts with their dreams could not see this, and the more fanatical of those who followed ‘the Old Religion’ ( Catholicism) which they believed the Stuarts would restore. The analogy between mountainous Macedon and mountainous Scotland is perhaps not unreasonable, but even in the Highlands, supposedly solidly Jacobite, only a small minority were foolish enough to ‘come out’. Charles’ few supporters wrote to him, saying that only if he brought an army of 6,000 Frenchmen, arms for 10,000 men, and at least 30,000 pounds in gold could they hope to raise support. Louis XV knew the cause was hopeless but was not averse to a cheap gamble if by a miracle the Stuarts might succeed. Thus Charles set off with two ships, [one of which was intercepted] 4,000 pounds and a token ‘French’ force of a few hundred Scots and Irish mercenaries. His supporters were aghast. The rebellion was doomed before it had even started. The few Highland chiefs who followed Charles called out their clans, who were indifferent at best ( just like the Macedonian populace in ‘Heracles’ cause ) very reluctant at worst. The MacDonalds, who belonged to the ‘Old Religion’ were foremost in coming out, and an ancestor of mine, Alexander McDonnell of Keppoch, like most of the rebel chiefs, raised his clan by the simple expedient of threatening to burn the thatch over the heads of the crofters if the men failed to turn out. Like many others, he would die at Culloden, shot through both legs and crying out that the men of his clan had deserted him – rather unfairly. Charles’ army never numbered more than 7,000 Highlanders, Lowlanders, Irishmen, Englishmen conscripted deserters and prisoners of war, and the sweepings of gaols. This from a potential of over 30,000 Highlanders alone. More would fight for King George than against him, and the government held most of Scotland throughout. Despite the “Bonny Prince Charlie” myth, there was absolutely no ‘popular uprising’ in his favour, though he did do rather better than Polyperchon, who raised no Macedonians at all ! His native tongue was Italian and he spoke poor English, and no Gaelic . For those who want to learn the truth behind the myth, I suggest “Culloden” by John Prebble as an objective view. For an excellent detailed military account, I suggest “Like Hungry Wolves” by Stuart Reid.
Bonnie Prince Charlie got as far south as Derbyshire. If he had not been forced to retreat by the more pusillanimous of his supporters (and NOT by military force) he could well have taken London, especially if the French had bothered simultaneously to invade. It may seem minor in retrospect, but it was a close-run thing.
This is another gross distortion of History! Charles reached Derby in the Midlands because he was completely unopposed on his march , but his ragtag army shrank every day they moved south, many Highlanders going home with a plaid full of plunder from defenceless towns and villages. At Derby they were confronted by the Duke of Cumberland, with a British army of troops containing many veterans brought home from the war in Flanders. Their rear and flank was threatened by another British army under Wade. There was no choice but to return north, or be crushed in the jaws of a pincer, so it was indeed 'Military Force' that left no option but retreat. The only 'close-run thing' was that Charles and his army escaped. In fact, buoyed by Charles’ surprising initial success ( though it was illusory) the French did indeed propose to invade, and Cumberland was distracted by this seeming threat which allowed Charles a good head start. There was never any prospect of ‘taking London’ – the London militias alone vastly outnumbered Charles, and the idea that the doomed invasion was a ‘close-run thing’ is demonstrably laughable. As to pusillanimity, as Charles left the stricken field of Culloden, a voice yelled after him "There ye go! Run, ye damned cowardly Italian!" This was widely believed to have been Lord Elcho, commander of Charles' Lifeguards.
Taphoi wrote:More to the point, Alexander IV and his mother and aunt evidently did not take as much care to hide their views on Cassander and their perspective on the killing of Olympias as Edward III did in respect of the murder of his father by Mortimer. The beautiful proof of how careless they were is the scale and magnificence of the Amphipolis Tomb. I fear that they did not understand that they were thereby resolving Cassander's risk-benefit dilemma in favour of their murder.
So it was the boy-King Alexander IV and his mother, the Bactrian Roxanne - both closely guarded prisoners -who are supposedly behind the construction of the kastas tomb for Olympias, supported by Aunt Thessalonike, wife of Kassander? Thessalonike demonstrably had no political influence we are aware of until after the death of Kassander, and the idea that this group could have built, or had built such a tomb is simply beyond credibility. For almost two years you have put forward your ''Olympias" theory, which has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Does the fact that in all that time you seemingly do not seem to have convinced a single soul here on Pothos not tell you something?