Antipater and the Argyraspyds...would they?

[Paralus]

It seems accepted fact that at the time of Alexander's death his empire was in fine shape. After all, the "Great King", Lord of Asia and simple hegemon of the League of Corinth was apparently only a week away from invading (sorry, circumnavigating) "Arabia".Nothing could be further from the truth. An aptly termed "reign of terror" by Alexander had seen off most of those that he'd appointed prior to his Indian adventure. Most GÇô if not all GÇô were summarily executed. A practice GÇô at least by this stage GÇô Alexander had seemingly perfected. Once summoned, one is not likely to survive.It is in this atmosphere that Antipater is summoned to Babylon. Mind that several "satraps" GÇô lesser individuals in the traditional Macedonian outlook (and there was nothing nouveau in Antipater's outlook) GÇô had gone and been executed before him. He had no real reason to expect any more comfortable a reception.He decided to disobey his king. Any lesser an individual might have capitulated. In Alexander's current state of mind it was at least an outright betrayal and more likely a declaration of war. How dare his regent fail a summons? Would Antipater have taken on Alexander? He'd already cast that die. Alexander did not take kindly to Cassander coming in his father's stead. The result was Craterus heading home with 10.000 veterans (and possibly the "Silver Shields" with Antigenes in command) and a commission to replace Antipater as regent and have him "bring re-enforcements to Alexander". Death would certainly follow.That Craterus took a year to even think of getting past Cilicia is, to me, rather pregnant. The West / East divide that was to develop with the Diadochoi was already well evident. It would GÇô as always GÇô come down to who had the "Macedonians". Alexander had sent most of his home (it matters not that they never made it) and he would fight with his Persian "Successors" GÇô including his "Silver Shield" regiment composed of Asians. The battles to follow his death (Parataecene and Gabiene) demonstrate just what 3,000 of Philip's original phalangites (the Argyraspids) would do to those pretenders.Given they were not happy at Opis GÇô with a new Hypapist corps of Asians and another bearing their name GÇô would they have taken up sarissas against Alexander?Paralus

[Jim Boudreaux]

I think it is important to consider why they were upset at Opis. Surely not because Alexander was augmenting his forces with Persians. Wasn't it rather because of the prestige he was bestowing on these Persians, addressing them with honorifics once applied only to his Macedonians. Were they not more concerned with being demeaned in the eyes of their king? If so then I don't think they would have been apt to go against Alexander since a reconciliation on that matter had been reached at Opis. However, as they showed at Gabiene, if it came down to a matter of him or them I think they would have. The challenge then for Antipater and Craterus would have been to persuade them that Alexander in some way posed just such a threat.

[Paralus]

G'dmorning Jim
Yes, there's much to be said for the fact that Alexander may have been "demeaning" them. Such demeaning took the form of replacing them GÇô they were no longer needed.
The telling point is Alexander's criterion of incapacity due to wounds or "age". Now, Hieronynus (who served as a general under Eumenes first and the Antigonids second) reports these remarkable old bastards as "none under sixty and many over seventy" at Paraetecene. This battle (318/7) is only some six years after Opis. Read Diodorus GÇô who preserves fairly well Hieronymus' account GÇô and marvel at what these old bastards were capable of. Any wonder they "mutinied" (in my view).Who was Alexander dismissing? One would think certainly not troops younger.Either way, they found their way back after Alexander's death (as all good troops do) and wound up (in my opinion) in Perdiccas' army of invasion of Egypt. Where GÇô unfortunately for Perdiccas GÇô their commander Atigenes (along with Seleucas and others) murdered their Marshal.The threat was there. The marshals did not like what they were seeing. Antipater was going nowhere near Alexander without an army: an army with reliable Macedonians.That resided in Cilicia. If the Argyraspids were with them then I believe it would have been on.

Alexander's departure for "Arabia" would have precipitated the first "Successor" war of his reign.Paralus.

[marcus]

I am slightly uncomfortable with the use of the term "reign of terror". For a start, the executions (although there were admittedly quite a few of them) took place over a relatively short period of time - doesn't mean it wasn't a "reign" of course, but the use of the word does imply that Alexander was more like Pol Pot, or Stalin. Second, although I haven't the time right now to check up on this, many of those punished were guilty of corruption, or their own 'reigns of terror', or a mixture of the two. That's not to say that the number of officials executed wasn't in some way alarming; but did Alexander have other options?ATBMarcus

[Jim Boudreaux]

Merhaba Paralus,
There are several points to be made here.
1)'The telling point is Alexander's criterion of incapacity due to wounds or "age". ' I think we agree that this "age" thing was code for Philip's generation thinkers, those not liberal enough in their understanding to appreciate his progressive ways.
2)'Would Antipater have taken on Alexander? He'd already cast that die. ' Yes indeed he had since Antipater felt no other option existed. However he had to be sure. One son, Iolas, was apparently unaffected by Antipater's recalcitrance so sending Cassander to Babylon to determine Alexander's disposition may not have seemed too dangerous a gamble. On Cassander's journey however he must have passed through Cilicia and no doubt dallied long enough to meet with Craterus. Thereafter Craterus remained in Cilicia. As you said, 'That Craterus took a year to even think of getting past Cilicia is, to me, rather pregnant. '
3)'They found their way back after Alexander's death (as all good troops do) and wound up (in my opinion) in Perdiccas' army of invasion of Egypt' Here I agree that the Argyraspyds were with Perdiccas in Egypt, but am confused by the idea that they 'found their way back after Alexander's death'. Were the 3,000 Silver Shields as a unit among the 10,000 foot sent home with Craterus and Polyperchon et al?

[ruthaki]

That was the way they did it in those days, wasn't it? If you were a threat or a traitor you were eliminated.As for Antipater not coming to Babylon. He was a pretty old guy by that time and died not too long after Alexander did. So perhaps he simply wasn't up to that long, arduous journey.

[Jim Boudreaux]

No, he was up to it. In fact he fought a battle in the pass at Thermopylae and withstood a siege in Lamia. Then fought and won a battle at Crannon and then harrassed the Aetolians. Then he mustered and marched an army across the straits and invaded Asia. He then crossed Anatolia and marched to the Orontes River at Triparadaisos and hard bargained with Alexander's riotous vetrans and then marched back through Anatolia to Macedonia, having made himself regent and therefore successor of the man he defied. Then he died.

[kennyxx]

Michael HailI guess your on the fall of Alexander path again. Meglamania setting in. Meaningless purges. AsMarcus put so elequently Alexander was in the process of Executions but as Marcus already said. These guys were crooks and mainly guilty of why they were executed.Alas Antipater defying even Squaring up to a showdown with a man who had gone undefeated in battle was a military genius and was heading his way with ahuge steam roller.All your reasonings and arguments enforce the murederplot of Alexander. No one amongst the Macedonian nobles welcomed nor like Alexanders new world order. Antipaterknew he was going to be replaced and Im sure all the Macedonian hierarchy was at risk. No further reasons needed for wanting Alexander killed. Were Alexander to cross back over with his armies reinforced with Asians what chance would Antipater have. Absolutely none. Antipater and his cronies were hanging on with there finger nails and I for one doubt Alexander had it in his mind to have him killed. Only my opinion. Anyway its pointless. I guess you underestimate Alexander full stop. First you have second Rate Roman Generals stuffing him now you have Antipater with a coalition of his own Macedonians Taking Alexander and his own brand. Not a chance.Kenny

[Paralus]

GGÇÖday Jim.ItGÇÖs awful difficult tracking the unit post Opis.I have no direct evidence that they may have been with Craterus in Cilicia. Here I am assuming based on what can be run down and deduced.Alexander demobbed some 10,000 GÇ£infirmGÇ¥ and GÇ£agedGÇ¥ troops. Yes, I agree, code for those of a Macedonian/Clietus the Black outlook. Of those aged troops, the Argyraspids were the eldest: at that time all in their sixties and approaching seventy. It is telling that one of his new Asian GÇ£fusionGÇ¥ units are called the GÇ£Silver ShieldsGÇ¥.Later actions give eloquent testament to the temperament of these grizzled old goats. Their demeanour had much too much independence of thought and action about it for the now paranoid Alexander methinks. As well, they were his fatherGÇÖs troops. The troops IGÇÖm certain Philip GÇ£retreatedGÇ¥ with at Chaeronea before annihilating the Athenians.In Cilicia with Craterus we have GÇô attested in the sources GÇô several infantry commanders along with Clietus (the GÇ£WhiteGÇ¥) commander of the1,500 horse: Polyperchon, Gorgias and one Antigenes. Now, that the attested commander of the GÇ£Silver ShieldsGÇ¥ is with Craterus is suggestive but, I agree, no direct proof.These men had little to call them back to Macedonia. They had lived their life under arms and God knows they were well aware of the pickings to be had in the East.Were the Argyraspids themselves not in Cilicia, their commander certainly was. The question then would be why?Paralus.

[Paralus]

GGÇÖday Kenny.No, this is not an GÇ£underestimate AlexanderGÇ¥ thing. The bloke was though a little GÇ£out thereGÇ¥ by this stage of his career. Nor is it a murder Alexander thing GÇô regardless of whether or not that may have occurred.This is squarely to do with ATGGÇÖs relations with his satraps and regent.Marcus points out that this may not have been a GÇ£reignGÇ¥. I too donGÇÖt have the time at present to lay hands on the material. I would say though, that were I Antipater and were I to receive that summons, I may well have noted the results occasioned to others whoGÇÖd already obeyed. They were GÇô with a singular exception (and he was dealt with later) GÇô dead.Jim has neatly pointed out AntipaterGÇÖs capabilities. That he did not come to Babylon was in no way connected to gathering dotage. It had everything to do with guaranteeing that dotage. Had Antipater come to Babylon, he would never have seen home again. He disobeyed his king and his die was cast. He now knew what to expect GÇô he didnGÇÖt have to guess. He had no choice. Craterus too knew what was coming GÇô he had the kingGÇÖs orders. He chose to sit quietly in Cilicia for a year in charge of rather a vast arsenal.Game on.Paralus

[kennyxx]

Hail Michael.The episode with Craterus stalling for a year. He must have been there rather a some time after Alexanders death. Alexander was not in Babylon for that long till he died. So Alexander sorted out the Naughty boys on his return then summoned Antipater.Summoning Antipater was a logistic move on his part as he had reformed his nucleus of control in the east im sure he wanted the same cohesion at home for Consolidation then for his next move.You say Craterus waited for a year. That says to me he also knew something was going to happen. So therefor wait out of the way with his arsenal and see which way the pendulum swings.Why wait a year just to defy Alexander and relieve Antipater.And still be waiting well after Alexander died.If Craterus intended to fall away from Alexander with these soldiers his best bet would be to go straight to Antipater to unite at least there chances would have been better against Alexander were the two forces united.Even Alexander been s shrewd ordered Craterus to take his time to see which way Antipater would react.Maybe just a long shot Alexander wanted to intimidate such an action from Antipater. An excuse indeed to take him and over run and press his authority over Macedon and Greece more solidly. What a better way to demonstrate absolute control than to crush Antipater. Secondly wher Antipater at this stage in open mutiny it would make sense for him to hold Olympias and Alexanders sister as hostage. Maybe Antipater was been pushed into something. To yield and hand over or to fight. Following Alexanders death then Craterus just sat an his hands waited to see what unraveled before he played the hand he had.Where Antipater to act against Alexander Im sure Craterus would have acted with his king along with his troops. Game set and match.I think itstime you stopped trying to class Alexander as an unthinking bafoon. Id wager Alexander as a chess player any day and knew every time what he was doing.kenny

[marcus]

I'm uncomfortable with calling it a "reign of terror"; but I don't disagree that Antipater *might* well have been a bit wary of what might happen if he obeyed the summons.However, there is nothing to suggest that Antipater had done anything wrong, or mis-governed, or whatever ... and despite his known antipathetic relationship with Olympias, there's nothing to suggest that Alexander took his mother's complaints that seriously. I would need to check, and I don't have my books to hand, exactly what crimes those who were executed were guilty of; however, assuming that those who were killed *were* guilty of criminality, then that seems to indicate two scenarious:1. Antipater actually had nothing to fear, because Alexander was only executing those who were guilty.2. Antipater had something to fear, because he was guilty of mis-government, corruption, or whatever, and this doesn't appear in the sources.Something else to consider - if Antipater had anything to fear, then why would he put his son in danger by sending him instead? He had another son who was already at court, also, who was a perfect hostage already.ATBMarcus

[abm]

This is a vry interesting debate, but unfortunately I donGÇÖt have time now to engage with it fully. IGÇÖll just limit myself to a few points. Alexander had, in my view, no plans to execute Antiptros at all. Marcus already pointed out that we should be carefull with the GÇ£reign of terrorGÇ¥-interpretation. Our view on the relationship between Alexander and Antipater is strongly affected by the propaganda wars of the Successors. Many scholars have recently rejected the rift between the king and his regent, and their arguments are convincing to my mind [see e.g. N.G. ASHTON, GÇÿCraterus from 324 to 321 B.C.GÇÖ, in Ancient Maceonia V, Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 10-15, 1989 (Institute for Balkan Studies 240), Thessaloniki 1993, pp. 126-127; E.J. BAYNHAM, GÇÿAntipater: Manager of KingsGÇÖ, in I. WORTHINGTON (ed.), Ventures into Greek History, Oxford 1994, pp. 343-346.] Iolaos has been mentioned and one might wonder whether Alexander would still have trusted him if he suspected his father. The example of Philotas and Parmenion is an interesting parallel here.Bosworth [From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in Historical Interpretation, Oxford 1988, pp. 208-209] and Ashton [art. cit., pp. 128-129] have shown independent from each other that Krateros actually had a prior commission in Cilicia to discharge before returning home: he was to supervise the shipbuilding for the planned campaigns in the West. This explains why he was still their at time of AlexanderGÇÖs death.Like most battles in this period, the battles of Gabiene and Paraetacene were actually decided by the cavalry, not by the Silver shields. Their role has been exaggerated by DiodorusGÇÖ source, probably Hieronymus, who clearly had his own agenda here. It is, to my mind, also very unlikely that the silver shields really were over 60 or even 70. Men of this age, even if they had once been the very best, can impossibly stand a chance against other trained soldiers in the prime of their life.regards,abm

[Paralus]

G'day ABM.I too am pressed for time GÇô need to leave for the office.Yes indeed Craterus had rather a large arsenal to see to on the way home. That's without mentioning the rather large treasury at Cyinda which funded the various Diadochoi over some ten or more years.I still believe the stay was more than what was necessary. In fact, the decision of the troops at Babylon GÇô to endorse Arrhidaeus and quash (at Perdiccas' instigation) the plans for the naval construction GÇô can really only be seen as a "get back to Macedon and carry out Alexander's instructions". After all, they were the ones going to be at the "pointy end".Hieronymous was indeed the source for Diodorus here. Like most historians commenting on actions in which he took part, his motives do need to be questioned (the descriptions of the utterly nomadic and "unconquerable Nabataean Arabs" which annihilated his force at the Dead Sea being a case in point).However, I see no reason to doubt his description of the Silver Shields. I believe these were definitely men from Philip's army and as such may quite easily have been a generation or so behind their erstwhile general Parmenio. There seems little to gain by overly exaggerating their age. There may be in overstating their intractability but I don't think that is either. As well, I don't believe Hieronymous fought with the infantry. And, given he was patronised (or found service under the Antigonids) for the rest of his active service, it is doubtful that exaggerating the weakness of his benefactor's infantry to praise his former friend and employer Eumenes would have curried favour.At the two actions under Eumenes, they mostly faced those trained "in the Macedonian fashion". And, yes, both battles were carried by the cavalry. That said, there is little doubt they held the field at Gabiene when a halt was called. Else they'd nothing to bargain with.

Antigonus evidently thought it best their "corporate identity" be demolished and subsequently dispatched them to the four winds of border protection. That, of course, after cremating their commander Antigenes(For all of which see Bosworth, "The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare and Propaganda Under the Successors", OUP, 2002).As to Antipater GÇô time for work. He'll have to remain a work in progress.Paralus.