Hi, Professor. Sorry to disturb you. I have several(may be lots of) questions to ask. 1. I noticed that Peter Green considered the information that Roxana had a miscarriage as unreliable, while believing that Alexander didn't have his first child until a few months before he died. He even seemed to suggest (if I understood him correctly) that Alexander might have intended to let Hephaisition take over his empire. Do you think such guess make sense? (At any rate, I wonder that had Alexander ever considered that if he died suddenly, the empire would fall into chaos without an heir?) 2. I noticed Diodorus made the following note: ‘Each of the generals and Friends tried to meet the king's desires and made likenesses of Hephaestion in ivory and gold and other materials which men hold in high regard.’ So were the likenesses eventually burned together in the cremation, if we speculate according to custom? 3. I notice you've been asked why Alexander tore down the battlements of nearby cities. I thought it was weird, too. As Diodorus recording that Alexander tore down the city walls of Babylon to build the square and the pyre (if I understood him correctly, I’m not sure), is it possible that he and Plutarch were writing about the same thing actually? (But the locations seemed to be different, so it’s just a wild guess) 4.Does Arrian's record mean that Alexander hadn't been on official business for two months or so because of his mourning? Was it also because of mourning that he didn't leave Ecbatana until the winter, or it's because he was resting his army? 5.(not question) I just want to say that I really love your Kampaspe and Kleopatra and really hope to see them more!!! They were both very attractive and, in my opinion, quite rational, unlike many of the stereotypes of women that still exist in literature today.THank you very much
Roxana's Miscarriage
There were several questions in one ask, so I’m dividing them up, but because of how Tumblr operates, only the first will look as if it’s from an ask. So, for future reference, if you’ve got two or more questions, especially if they don’t relate to each other, maybe submit each separately? If I answer them all in one post, it’ll (probably) be long even for me (which is saying something).
Now, as for Roxana’s miscarriage/short-lived son, Peter Green is right that it’s recorded in a late source of dubious merit (the Metz Epitome 70). That said, I’m inclined to believe it. The idea of a very young woman miscarrying while on a difficult trek in a foreign country with food she’s not used to eating and probable disease is perfectly reasonable, even if she’d have been far better taken care of than most of the soldiers. Nor is it a surprise the event was excluded from the main biographies. As I’ve noted before, children who died young, even of important individuals, are rarely mentioned in our records unless there’s a specific reason to do so—as with Philip’s last child Europa. We hear about her largely due to the ghastly way she died and how Alexander may or may not have been involved.
And yes, I do think ATG intended for Hephaistion to take over the administration of his eastern empire, from Babylon as the new capital. Alexander didn’t seem to have much taste for messy administration, so he left it to the man he thought best suited to the job. And who he trusted absolutely. Hephaistion.
As for his empire falling into chaos at his death with no heir—he’d seen that movie before. It was common in Macedon due to the way inheritance was handled. Even the transfer of power from as popular a king as Alexander I to his adult and capable son Perdikkas II (following the Persian Wars) didn’t go without challenge.
To fix the problem would have involved a lot more than just producing a viable male heir. Inheritance in Macedon was at once strictly limited, but also unusually open. One had to be an Argead, but if a son of the prior king was favored, primogeniture didn’t apply. Any male Argead could aspire to the kingship, including from collateral lines. If Beth Carney is right, there seems to have been a preference for the son of the highest-status mother—perhaps why Archelaos had to eliminate a half-sibling before taking the throne. Plato called his mother a slave, but she was simply of lower status, so he wasn’t crown prince. Similarly, Alexander was favored over Arrhidaios, whose mother was also called a “dancing girl” (e.g., a prostitute/slave). She wasn’t. She was probably a daughter from Jason’s family in Thessaly. But Olympias was the daughter and sister of kings, ergo, of higher status. Yet Archelaos is a perfect example of how the status of one’s mother didn’t guarantee who’d become (and stay) king.
Alexander I produced 5 sons, most of whom, in turn, had multiple sons. Ergo, we had a wealth of Argeads down, really, to the reign of Amyntas III, Philip’s dad. Both Philip’s older brothers reigned before him. Alexander II was murdered a year into his reign, then Perdikkas ruled for some years. When he died on a battlefield in Lynkestis, he left behind a male heir—but an infant. Philip stepped in to become king because he was much better positioned to lead the country in a crisis. Infant…adult…the Macedonians chose the adult.
Philip produced only two boys who survived to adulthood, and only one was viable. Arrhidaios became king only as the last male Argead standing. ATG had eliminated his cousin, Amyntas Perdikka, within a few months of Philip’s death. Typical for accession. Amyntas was his rival, with an almost-equal claim: both their fathers had been king. Neither could have let the other live. Arrhidaios wasn’t killed because he presented no threat. All the Argeads had pursued this tact: killing their rivals. Those who weren’t a threat got to live. But over time, that takes a toll.
So from the death of Alexander I down to Alexander’s (450ish-323BCE), the once wealth of Argeads diminished severely. Was Alexander aware of this? Yes, of course. But fixing the problem would’ve challenged something fundamental about Macedonian inheritance AND required him to forego the pursuit of kleos (fame) and timē (notoriety/honor), to at least some degree. While he could get married on the march (as he did) and get his wife pregnant (as he apparently did), to produce enough children, he’d have needed to stay put a little more often. Philip also pursued multiple campaigns, but typically made it back to Pella at least once a year. His longest campaign in Thrace (two+ years) was relatively close. For Alexander, dashing back from the border of Baktria to Babylon for a quick check-in was simply an impossible distance. (A point I’ve tried to impress on some filmmakers, but I’m not sure they’re paying attention.)
In any case, ATG simply wasn’t willing to curtail his campaigning to father some kids. Yet when he did come back to roost for a bit, in early 324, he got down to business pretty quick; by his death in Babylon just a year and a half later, he had two of his three wives pregnant.
I doubt he’d have made any significant changes to inheritance. If both Roxane and Statiera had produced boys, he’d have expected them to compete to prove themselves worthy. And if Herakles was really his son (I’m dubious), the boy would’ve had to do the same. In any case, a male child by Statiera would have been favored, but he’d still have to prove himself and survive. That’s why Roxana had Statiera killed after ATG’s death. (The fact she made no attempt on Herakles adds fuel to my conviction Herakles wasn’t ATG’s son.)
2. I noticed Diodorus made the following note: ‘Each of the generals and Friends tried to meet the king's desires and made likenesses of Hephaestion in ivory and gold and other materials which men hold in high regard.’ So were the likenesses eventually burned together in the cremation, if we speculate according to custom?
No, these were dedicatory statues. They’d have been given either to a shrine or temple, or (more likely) to Alexander himself. It’s unlikely they’d have been burned in the cremation.
