Babylon settlement

From WCD

The Babylon settlement was the initial arrangement for the administration of Alexander’s empire after his death on the 11 June 323 BC in Babylon. The issue proved contentious among the Macedonians, and a final settlement took about a month to achieve. Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus (who possibly had some form of mental illness) and unborn son Alexander IV were jointly proclaimed king, and Perdiccas was established as regent. The settlement did not last long, however, and in 321 or 320 BC a new settlement was agreed at Triparadeisus in Syria.

[edit]

The first meeting

The day after Alexander died, his generals and the most important of his friends met in the royal palace to discuss the succession (C 10.6.1). Alexander had not left an obvious heir and this proved to be the source of much debate. The troubles started even before the meeting had begun: according to Curtius (10.6.1) the common soldiers, who were not invited, tried to force their way into the palace, thus also preventing the entrance of some of the nobles (D 18.2.2 and J 13.2.4-3.1 present a different version, but Curtius' is the more likely: see mainly Mooren, p. 235-236). Perdiccas, who had received Alexander's signet ring (C 10.5.4; D 17.117.3 and 18.2.4; J 12.15.12; Metz Epitome 112; Lucian Dial. Mort. 13.391; Nepos Eum. 2.1), was the first to act. He put the ring on the throne, together with the rest of Alexander's royal insignia. Then he started speaking: he suggested that Alexander's unborn child, if it proved to be a boy, should become king (C 10.6.8-9; J 13.2.5). Probably he hoped to become the regent for the unborn king because of his leading position.

Nearchus, however, proposed not to wait for an unborn king while Alexander already had a son: Heracles, son of Barsine (C 10.6.10-11). Obviously he also aimed at personal power and influence in suggesting this, because he was married to a daughter of Barsine, who would then be a half-sister of the king. He vehemently defended his proposal, but he only found disapproval (C 10.6.12).

Meleager spoke next, and he dismissed the possibility of a half Persian (scil. Alexander's unborn son or Heracles) ruling the Macedonian empire; he suggested to choose Arrhidaeus (J 13.2.6-10). Like the previous propasals, this one was probably aimed at personal power too, since the feeble-minded Arrhidaeus could never rule in person and Meleager might have hoped to assume the regency, being the one who suggested to crown Arrhidaeus.

Ptolemy, however, deemed none of the aforementioned candidates suited to rule the Macedonian empire and therefore proposed that a council of those who were closest to the deceased king should take up the government (C 10.6.13-15. J 13.6.11-12 probably misrepresents Ptolemy's words here, making him suggest to choose one of Alexander's friends as king.). Ptolemy might really have thought that it was possible to administer the empire this way, but more likely the proposal was simply aimed at undermining Perdiccas authority or preventing anyone else from obtaining more power than he did. If so, he apparently was succesful, because more nobles approved of his suggestion than of Perdiccas' (C 10.6.16). Unlike what many scholars think, Ptolemy did not mean to disband the empire in doing this proposal.

Then, Aristonous proposed to appoint Perdiccas king (C 10.6.16-17). Perdiccas, however, hesitated (C 10.6.18), since he could not be sure he had enough support. The common soldiers did not seem to oppose this idea, but Meleager immediately contested it with vigor and probably most officials did not want Perdiccas on the throne. Melager agitated the troops and suggested to loot the spoils of war in the palace (C 10.6.20-24); his speech met the approval of the soldiers (C 10.7.1).

This article is a stub. You can help the WCD by expanding it (http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/index.php?title=Babylon_settlement&action=edit).


[edit]

Main ancient accounts

[edit]

References

  • E.M. Anson, "The Evolution of the Macedonian Army Assembly (330-315 B.C.)", Historia 40 (1991), pp. 230-247. — Deals with the role of the army.
  • E.M. Anson, "Craterus and the Prostasia", Classical Philology 87 (1992), pp. 38-43. — Finally solves the much debated problem of the prostasia, but his view does not seem to be accepted by other scholars, although only E.D. Carney, "Women and Basileia: Legitimacy and Female Political Action in Macedonia", Classical Journal 90 (1995), pp. 369-373 has explicitly rejected it. Bosworth, Legacy (see below), pp. 51-53 does so implicitly.
  • A.B. Bosworth, The Legacy of Alexander. Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda under the Successors, Oxford, 2002, chapter 2: The Politics of the Babylon Settlement. An excellent analysis (the standard).
  • E.D. Carney, "The Trouble with Philip Arrhidaeus", Ancient History Bulletin (http://hum.ucalgary.ca/wheckel/ahb.htm) 15 (2001), pp. 63-89. — Investigates the events concerning Arrhidaeus.
  • R.M. Errington, "From Babylon to Triparadeisos: 323-320 B.C.", Journal of Hellenic Studies 90 (1970), pp. 49-58. — Still one of the best overall discussions.
  • W.S. Greenwalt, "Argead Name Changes", in Ancient Macedonia VI, Papers Read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15-19, 1996 (Institute for Balkan Studies 272), Thessaloniki, vol. I, pp. 453-462. — Discusses the reason for Arrhidaeus' name change to Philip.
  • H. Klinkott, Die Satrapienregister der Alexander- und Diadochenzeit (Historia Einzelschriften 145), Stuttgart 2000. — Collects and discusses all preserved lists of the satrapy distribution.
  • P. McKenchie, "Manipulation of themes in Quintus Curtius Rufus Book 10", Historia 48 (1999), pp. 44-60. — Quite implausibly argues that Curtius' account of the first meeting after Alexander's death in no way relates to reality, but is simply a retorical elaboration of the 'debate on the three constitutions', with speeches completely made up by Curtius. This view has been rejected almost universally.
  • L. Mooren, "The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy", in E. Van 't Dack et al. (eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven 24-26 May 1982 (Studia Hellenistica 27), Leuven 1983, pp. 205-240. — This article is mostly ignored in studies of the Babylon settlement, but the appendix has the best discussion of the soldiers' presence at the first meeting and of Ptolemy's proposal, although the author probably pushes the conlusions on Macedonian monarchy he derives from it a bit too far.
  • F. Schachermeyr, Alexander in Babylon und die Reichsordnung nach seinem Tode (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 268), Wien 1970. — The most full account; contains a very interesting analysis of the circumstances.
  • J. Seibert, Das Zeitalter der Diadochen (Erträge der Forschung 185), Darmstadt 1983, pp. 84-89. — An excellent overview of the scholarship up to 1980.
  • M.D. Roberts & R.S. Bennett, Successors of Alexander the Great, Chapter Babylon, of this on-line book. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/bobbbennett/babylon.htm)
More bibliography (http://hum.ucalgary.ca/wheckel/Alexbibl/reichsordnung.htm) (by W. Heckel and P.V. Wheatley).


Retrieved from "http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Babylon_settlement"