d d d

ANTIGONUS I I GONATAS

ANTIGONUS IIGONATAS

A Political Biography

Janice JGabbert

London and New York

First published 1997by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE

This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2004

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

29 West 35th Street New York NY 10001

copy 1997 Janice JGabbert

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprintedor reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic

mechanical or other means now known or hereafterinvented including photocopying and recording or in any

information storage or retrieval system withoutpermission in writing from the publishers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available fromthe British Library

Librar y of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN 0-203-40344-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-71168-8 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-01899-4 (Print Edition)

v

CONTENTS

Preface viAntigonid kings of Macedonia viiSelect chronology viii

1 THE EARLY YEARS 1

2 THE APPRENTICE KING 8

3 ANARCHY AND RECOVERY 21

4 THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS 29

5 THE GREEK HEGEMONY 33

6 THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR 45

7 AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES 54

8 THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY 59

9 THE MAN AND THE KING 68

Notes 73Bibliography 80Index 87

vi

PREFACE

I have attempted in the following pages to describe the life of animportant person in history and the events associated with him Thefocus is deliberately narrow other works exist on the general historyof the third century BC and there is no need to duplicate them

The paucity and ambiguity of the evidence is well known andthis is not the place to attempt to solve all problems even if it werepossible I have however attempted to make clear the areas whereproblems and controversy exist to indicate possible solutions andto provide a bibliography for further study of individual problems

This book was originally to be a joint project with ProfessorAllen MWard of the University of Connecticut Some progress hadalready been made when Professor Ward was forced to withdrawdue to the pressures of other commitments I decided to attempt tocomplete the work alone but am grateful for his early assistanceand whatever is good in this may be to his credit Of course Iassume full responsibility for the text in its current condition includingany errors or omissions

Much gratitude is due also to Richard Stoneman of Routledge forhis patience and understanding during the many delays in gettingthis manuscript into print

The nature of the subject and the evidence for it is such that abiography of Antigonus Gonatas will never be sufficiently completethe work is never entirely finished Yet his was an interesting life ininteresting times of historical importance It is worth writing aboutand I hope it will be found useful

JJGJanuary 1996

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

ANTIGONUS I I GONATAS

ANTIGONUS IIGONATAS

A Political Biography

Janice JGabbert

London and New York

First published 1997by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE

This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2004

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

29 West 35th Street New York NY 10001

copy 1997 Janice JGabbert

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprintedor reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic

mechanical or other means now known or hereafterinvented including photocopying and recording or in any

information storage or retrieval system withoutpermission in writing from the publishers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available fromthe British Library

Librar y of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN 0-203-40344-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-71168-8 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-01899-4 (Print Edition)

v

CONTENTS

Preface viAntigonid kings of Macedonia viiSelect chronology viii

1 THE EARLY YEARS 1

2 THE APPRENTICE KING 8

3 ANARCHY AND RECOVERY 21

4 THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS 29

5 THE GREEK HEGEMONY 33

6 THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR 45

7 AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES 54

8 THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY 59

9 THE MAN AND THE KING 68

Notes 73Bibliography 80Index 87

vi

PREFACE

I have attempted in the following pages to describe the life of animportant person in history and the events associated with him Thefocus is deliberately narrow other works exist on the general historyof the third century BC and there is no need to duplicate them

The paucity and ambiguity of the evidence is well known andthis is not the place to attempt to solve all problems even if it werepossible I have however attempted to make clear the areas whereproblems and controversy exist to indicate possible solutions andto provide a bibliography for further study of individual problems

This book was originally to be a joint project with ProfessorAllen MWard of the University of Connecticut Some progress hadalready been made when Professor Ward was forced to withdrawdue to the pressures of other commitments I decided to attempt tocomplete the work alone but am grateful for his early assistanceand whatever is good in this may be to his credit Of course Iassume full responsibility for the text in its current condition includingany errors or omissions

Much gratitude is due also to Richard Stoneman of Routledge forhis patience and understanding during the many delays in gettingthis manuscript into print

The nature of the subject and the evidence for it is such that abiography of Antigonus Gonatas will never be sufficiently completethe work is never entirely finished Yet his was an interesting life ininteresting times of historical importance It is worth writing aboutand I hope it will be found useful

JJGJanuary 1996

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

ANTIGONUS IIGONATAS

A Political Biography

Janice JGabbert

London and New York

First published 1997by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE

This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2004

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

29 West 35th Street New York NY 10001

copy 1997 Janice JGabbert

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprintedor reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic

mechanical or other means now known or hereafterinvented including photocopying and recording or in any

information storage or retrieval system withoutpermission in writing from the publishers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available fromthe British Library

Librar y of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN 0-203-40344-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-71168-8 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-01899-4 (Print Edition)

v

CONTENTS

Preface viAntigonid kings of Macedonia viiSelect chronology viii

1 THE EARLY YEARS 1

2 THE APPRENTICE KING 8

3 ANARCHY AND RECOVERY 21

4 THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS 29

5 THE GREEK HEGEMONY 33

6 THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR 45

7 AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES 54

8 THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY 59

9 THE MAN AND THE KING 68

Notes 73Bibliography 80Index 87

vi

PREFACE

I have attempted in the following pages to describe the life of animportant person in history and the events associated with him Thefocus is deliberately narrow other works exist on the general historyof the third century BC and there is no need to duplicate them

The paucity and ambiguity of the evidence is well known andthis is not the place to attempt to solve all problems even if it werepossible I have however attempted to make clear the areas whereproblems and controversy exist to indicate possible solutions andto provide a bibliography for further study of individual problems

This book was originally to be a joint project with ProfessorAllen MWard of the University of Connecticut Some progress hadalready been made when Professor Ward was forced to withdrawdue to the pressures of other commitments I decided to attempt tocomplete the work alone but am grateful for his early assistanceand whatever is good in this may be to his credit Of course Iassume full responsibility for the text in its current condition includingany errors or omissions

Much gratitude is due also to Richard Stoneman of Routledge forhis patience and understanding during the many delays in gettingthis manuscript into print

The nature of the subject and the evidence for it is such that abiography of Antigonus Gonatas will never be sufficiently completethe work is never entirely finished Yet his was an interesting life ininteresting times of historical importance It is worth writing aboutand I hope it will be found useful

JJGJanuary 1996

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

First published 1997by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE

This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2004

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

29 West 35th Street New York NY 10001

copy 1997 Janice JGabbert

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprintedor reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic

mechanical or other means now known or hereafterinvented including photocopying and recording or in any

information storage or retrieval system withoutpermission in writing from the publishers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available fromthe British Library

Librar y of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN 0-203-40344-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-71168-8 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-01899-4 (Print Edition)

v

CONTENTS

Preface viAntigonid kings of Macedonia viiSelect chronology viii

1 THE EARLY YEARS 1

2 THE APPRENTICE KING 8

3 ANARCHY AND RECOVERY 21

4 THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS 29

5 THE GREEK HEGEMONY 33

6 THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR 45

7 AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES 54

8 THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY 59

9 THE MAN AND THE KING 68

Notes 73Bibliography 80Index 87

vi

PREFACE

I have attempted in the following pages to describe the life of animportant person in history and the events associated with him Thefocus is deliberately narrow other works exist on the general historyof the third century BC and there is no need to duplicate them

The paucity and ambiguity of the evidence is well known andthis is not the place to attempt to solve all problems even if it werepossible I have however attempted to make clear the areas whereproblems and controversy exist to indicate possible solutions andto provide a bibliography for further study of individual problems

This book was originally to be a joint project with ProfessorAllen MWard of the University of Connecticut Some progress hadalready been made when Professor Ward was forced to withdrawdue to the pressures of other commitments I decided to attempt tocomplete the work alone but am grateful for his early assistanceand whatever is good in this may be to his credit Of course Iassume full responsibility for the text in its current condition includingany errors or omissions

Much gratitude is due also to Richard Stoneman of Routledge forhis patience and understanding during the many delays in gettingthis manuscript into print

The nature of the subject and the evidence for it is such that abiography of Antigonus Gonatas will never be sufficiently completethe work is never entirely finished Yet his was an interesting life ininteresting times of historical importance It is worth writing aboutand I hope it will be found useful

JJGJanuary 1996

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

v

CONTENTS

Preface viAntigonid kings of Macedonia viiSelect chronology viii

1 THE EARLY YEARS 1

2 THE APPRENTICE KING 8

3 ANARCHY AND RECOVERY 21

4 THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS 29

5 THE GREEK HEGEMONY 33

6 THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR 45

7 AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES 54

8 THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY 59

9 THE MAN AND THE KING 68

Notes 73Bibliography 80Index 87

vi

PREFACE

I have attempted in the following pages to describe the life of animportant person in history and the events associated with him Thefocus is deliberately narrow other works exist on the general historyof the third century BC and there is no need to duplicate them

The paucity and ambiguity of the evidence is well known andthis is not the place to attempt to solve all problems even if it werepossible I have however attempted to make clear the areas whereproblems and controversy exist to indicate possible solutions andto provide a bibliography for further study of individual problems

This book was originally to be a joint project with ProfessorAllen MWard of the University of Connecticut Some progress hadalready been made when Professor Ward was forced to withdrawdue to the pressures of other commitments I decided to attempt tocomplete the work alone but am grateful for his early assistanceand whatever is good in this may be to his credit Of course Iassume full responsibility for the text in its current condition includingany errors or omissions

Much gratitude is due also to Richard Stoneman of Routledge forhis patience and understanding during the many delays in gettingthis manuscript into print

The nature of the subject and the evidence for it is such that abiography of Antigonus Gonatas will never be sufficiently completethe work is never entirely finished Yet his was an interesting life ininteresting times of historical importance It is worth writing aboutand I hope it will be found useful

JJGJanuary 1996

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

vi

PREFACE

I have attempted in the following pages to describe the life of animportant person in history and the events associated with him Thefocus is deliberately narrow other works exist on the general historyof the third century BC and there is no need to duplicate them

The paucity and ambiguity of the evidence is well known andthis is not the place to attempt to solve all problems even if it werepossible I have however attempted to make clear the areas whereproblems and controversy exist to indicate possible solutions andto provide a bibliography for further study of individual problems

This book was originally to be a joint project with ProfessorAllen MWard of the University of Connecticut Some progress hadalready been made when Professor Ward was forced to withdrawdue to the pressures of other commitments I decided to attempt tocomplete the work alone but am grateful for his early assistanceand whatever is good in this may be to his credit Of course Iassume full responsibility for the text in its current condition includingany errors or omissions

Much gratitude is due also to Richard Stoneman of Routledge forhis patience and understanding during the many delays in gettingthis manuscript into print

The nature of the subject and the evidence for it is such that abiography of Antigonus Gonatas will never be sufficiently completethe work is never entirely finished Yet his was an interesting life ininteresting times of historical importance It is worth writing aboutand I hope it will be found useful

JJGJanuary 1996

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

vii

ANTIGONID KINGSOF MACEDONIA

(Dates in brackets are claimed if not exercised)

(306ndash301) Antigonus I and Demetrius I294ndash286 Demetrius I Poliorcetes(286) 276ndash239 Antigonus II Gonatas239ndash229 Demetrius II229ndash221 Antigonus III Doson221ndash179 Philip V179ndash167 Perseus

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

viii

SELECT CHRONOLOGY

(All dates BC)

323 Death of Alexander the Great319 Birth of Antigonus II Gonatas birth of Pyrrhus316 Death of (king) Philip III Arrhidaeus (brother of Alexander)312 Seleucus gains Babylon permanently Demetrius (I

Poliorcetes) v Ptolemy at Gaza311 General peace treaty among satraps murder of Alexander IV

by Cassander (end of Argead dynasty)307 Liberation of Athens by Demetrius Four Years War Demetrius

(Athens) v Cassander306 Antigonus I and Demetrius assume title of ldquokingrdquo Ptolemy

Seleucus Lysimachus Cassander follow suit305 Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo301 Battle of Ipsus death of Antigonus I298 Lachares assumes tyranny at Athens expelled by Demetrius294 Demetrius I King of Macedonia (to 286)286 Invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus and Pyrrhus ldquorevoltrdquo in

Athens283 Death of Demetrius I Antigonus Gonatas assumes title of

king death of Ptolemy I281 Battle of Corupedium death of Lysimachus murder of

Seleucus280 Invasion of Macedon by Gauls devastation of Macedonia and

Thrace277 Antigonus defeats Gauls at Lysimacheia marriage of

Antigonus and his niece Phila (daughter of Seleucus)272 Death of Pyrrhus in Argos265ndash262 Chremonidean War naval Battle of Cos252 Alexander son of Craterus usurps control of Corinth246 Antigonus recovers Corinth naval Battle of Andros243 Aratus of Sicyon seizes Corinth239 Death of Antigonus II Gonatas

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

1

1

THE EARLY YEARS

Antigonus Gonatas was born in 319 BC and died in 239 BC Helived a long life of eighty years and was king of Macedonia a majorpower for half of his long life The time in which he lived was aperiod of turbulent transition full of war and change Yet it is difficultto know this man to understand his character indeed it is oftenimpossible even to know what he did still less why or how he didit The evidence is lacking as is well known

There are no remaining official archives or records of the kingand there is no surviving narrative of events written by anotherparty friendly or hostile The portion of the ldquouniversal historyrdquo ofDiodorus Siculus covering the years after 301 is lost the narrative ofPolybius where the focus is the rise of Rome does not begin until221 BC The events of the life and reign of Antigonus must largelybe interpreted from chance remarks in later sources and randomlysurviving contemporary epigraphical evidence primarily Athenianinscriptions Inevitably the evidence from such sources is oftenambiguous and the conclusions are controversial The only priorattempt to describe this man and his times was WWTarnrsquos magisterialwork Antigonos Gonatas published in 1913 That was nearly acentury ago In the intervening years new evidence has appearedmostly epigraphical and new interpretations of events have beensuggested It is time to try again

Antigonus was probably born in Gonnoi in Thessaly The nameof the town is one possible explanation of his nickname ldquoGonatasrdquowhich is otherwise not easily explained1 It was a likely place forhis mother to be she was Phila daughter of Antipater the regent ofMacedonia in 319 BC Thessaly was firmly under his control Thefather of Antigonus was Demetrius later called ldquoPoliorcetesrdquo whowas probably not present at the birth of his first-born (and only

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

THE EARLY YEARS

2

GENEALOGYAntipater+()

children Nicaea m Perdiccas (no issue)m Lysimachus child Arsinoeuml I (m Ptolemy II)

AgathoclesPhila I m Craterus child Craterus II

m Demetrius I (Poliorcetes)children Stratonice (m Seleucus Antiochus)

Antigonus II Gonatasm Phila II (below) child Demetrius II

Eurydice m Ptolemy I children Ptolemy CeraunusLysandra Ptolemais

Cassander m Thessaloniki (dau Philip II)children Philip Antipater Alexander (V)mdashall

died young(other children of Antipater)

Antigonus I+Stratonicechildren Philippos () died young

Demetrius I Poliorcetes m Phila I children Stratonice IAntigonus II Gonatas

m Eurydice of Athens (no issue)m Deidameia (sister of Pyrrhus)

(no issue)m Lanassa (dau Agathocles of

Syracuse) (no issue)m Ptolemais (dau Ptolemy I) child

Demetrius the Fair(helliphis child Antigonus Doson)

Lagos+(()) children Ptolemy I Berenice othersPtolemy I m Eurydice (dau Antipater) children Ptolemy Ceraunus

Lysandra Ptolemaism Berenice (his step-sister) children Arsinoeuml II Ptolemy II

PhiladelphusPtolemy II m Arsinoeuml I

children Ptolemy III LysimachosBerenice (m Antiochus II)

m Arsinoeuml II (no issue)

Seleucus m Apama child Antiochus Im Stratonice I (dau Demetrius) child Phila II m

Antigonus GonatasStratonice I m Antiochus Ichildren Antiochus II Seleucus Apame Stratonice II

Lysimachus m Nicaea (dau Antipater) children Arsinoeuml I and Agathoclesm Arsinoeuml II (dau Ptolemy I) children Ptolemy plus 2 others

THE EARLY YEARS

3

legitimate) son but was with his father Antigonus I Monophthalmosat his headquarters in Phrygia Demetrius was only about eighteenyears old at the time he had married Phila at his fatherrsquos insistenceMonophthalmos thought it was a politically advantageous matcheven though Phila was much older than Demetrius She was probablyin her mid- to late twenties and already a widow (of Craterus) witha young son

The political marriages which were begun following the death ofAlexander continued sporadically for the next few generations As aresult Antigonus Gonatas was related by blood or marriage or bothto just about everyone of political or military consequence in thatperiod Seleucus I Nikator was at one time or another his brother-in-law and father-in-law Antiochus the son of Seleucus was alsohis brother-in-law through the same sister Ptolemy I Soter was hisuncle Ptolemy II Philadelphus was his cousin and PyrrhusLysimachus and Cassander were also at one time or another hisuncles (see the genealogical chart) These multiple marriages weredesigned to link the families but often resulted in friction instead

In this fractious group the direct line descended from AntigonusI Monophthalmos was unique for the obvious loyalty and dedicationto one another For four generations no Antigonid was evermurdered banished dethroned or intrigued against by anotherIndeed they usually got along quite well in different ways andsome better than others

The cross-generational parallels are striking although perhapscoincidental

Antigonus I Monophthalmos reached the height of his powerand influence late in life he was over fifty when he becameprominent after the death of Alexander He apparently married latealso had only one wife and only one son (Demetrius may havehad an older brother who died young) Antigonus I was over fortywhen Demetrius was born and he indulged the boy forgiving hischildish and adolescent pranks and bringing him into the familybusiness (power) at an early age He shared his success with hisson Antigonus was the first of the Successors to take the title ofldquokingrdquomdashand it was a joint kingship with his son Demetrius Helived to be more than eighty years old

In the same manner Antigonus II Gonatas reached the height ofhis power late in life He had no special position or power untilDemetrius died in 283 when Antigonus was already about thirty-seven years old He too married late and only once He was about

THE EARLY YEARS

4

forty-two when he married his young niece Phila by whom hefathered his only legitimate child his son Demetrius II He hadanother son by an Athenian hetaira (Demo) named Halkyoneuswho was born when Antigonus was in his late twenties Both sonswere given considerable fatherly attention and his legitimate sonDemetrius was associated with him in the family business (monarchy)at an early age Demetrius II was nominally in command of an armyagainst Epirus c 264 BC when he was about fourteen years oldAntigonus II also lived a long life to eighty

By contrast both Demetrius I and Demetrius II tasted power atan early age Both married young and more than once producedseveral children and seem to have given little personal attention toany of them The family tradition of loyalty and affection was realenough but neither Demetrius played the role of father with anyzeal For example while both Antigonus I and II took care to associatetheir young sons in the kingship Demetrius I was king of Macedoniafor nearly seven years but there is no evidence that he ever namedhis thirty-year-old son Antigonus joint king Both Demetrius I and IIdied young

Nothing certain is known about the youth of Gonatas He wasnot active in his fatherrsquos power games until he was about twenty-five For the years before that we can only surmise the activity orwhereabouts of Antigonus by looking at his fatherrsquos activity andmake some assumptions based on the later attitudes and behaviorof Antigonus

His youth was no doubt spent acquiring the finest educationpossible Diogenes Laertius (DL 2110) records that an early teacherof Antigonus was Euphantos of Olynthus who wrote a treatise forhim on governing a kingdom and he studied with many otherphilosophers of his time primarily in Athens Tarn made much ofthe fact that Antigonus had been educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens and perhaps he made too much of it By the latefourth century BC Athens had already become the ldquouniversity townrdquoit would remain for centuries Anyone who could afford advancededucation went to Athens if possible Demetrius certainly providedwell for the education of his son and Athens was a very easy placefor Antigonus to be Antigonus later valued his study with variousphilosophers and was known to have remained on friendly termswith many of them Cleanthes Menedemos Bion Timon of PhliusPersaios Arcesilaus and especially Zeno2 Yet many of thesefriendships some in fact not very close seem to date to a much

THE EARLY YEARS

5

later period The evidence is anecdotal and inconclusive but it ispossible that many of these friendships such as they were wereformed after Antigonus became king of Macedonia During his reignand at a time when he was over forty years old he called himself apupil of Menedemos (DL 2141) and in the context it could beinterpreted as polite flattery not wholly untrue but not to be takentoo seriously He surely was a student of Zeno the Stoic either asan adult or earlier in his adolescence He was genuinely fond ofZeno3 and seems to have enjoyed conversing with him But it wouldbe reaching to assume therefore that Antigonus agreed with Zenoor became a dedicated Stoic Indeed there is evidence to the contraryOn one occasion Antigonus made a deliberately false statement toZeno that his estate had been ravaged by ldquothe enemyrdquo (the incidentcannot be dated) He wanted to see Zenorsquos reaction As he expectedZeno was distraught whereupon Antigonus is said to have remarkedldquoYou see wealth is not a matter of indifferencerdquo (DL 736) It wouldseem that the two men had an ongoing disagreement on that subjectand perhaps others Zeno often complained that Antigonus broughtnoisy parties to his house (DL 713) did this mean a few incidentsin the youth of Antigonus or an ongoing amicable irritation PerhapsAntigonus could consume wine as zealously as his father Thephilosopher Bion was known to be on friendly terms with Antigonus(we do not know when) and he was well-known as a heavy drinker(DL 446) The relationship with Zeno and his circle was long-lasting It was Antigonus who introduced Persaios to Zeno Persaiosbecame tutor to Antigonusrsquo son Halkyoneus and was later sent toAntigonus by Zeno in his stead because Zeno was too old to travel(DL 736 76) Much later Persaios was a high-ranking official forAntigonus at Corinth4 Much of the anecdotal information about therelationship of Antigonus and philosophers reveals not so much theinfluence of philosophy on Antigonus but the political activity ofthe philosophers Menedemos of Eretria also noted for his livelyparties was an envoy to Demetrius to Ptolemy and to Lysimachusattempted to intercede with Antigonus regarding affairs in Eretriamoved the decree of Eretria honoring Antigonus after his defeat ofthe Gauls at Lysimacheia was a close friend of Antigonusrsquo garrisoncommander in the Piraeus and died at the court of Antigonus involuntary exile (DL 2133ndash142) The Athenian orator Democharesnever a friend to Antigonus berated Zeno for his unquestionedinfluence with Antigonus an influence Zeno was always carefulnot to use (DL 715)

THE EARLY YEARS

6

Antigonusrsquo study of philosophy no doubt began in his youthand continued throughout his life as time and circumstances allowedHe had the opportunity to learn much about statecraft simply byobserving the career of his father The opportunity was even greaterto the extent that he shared some of those experiences It will beuseful to review the relevant episodes in the career of Demetriusduring the formative years of Antigonus

Demetrius had had his first military command at the age of aboutseventeen he commanded the Companion Cavalry of his fatherrsquosforces in the battle at Gabene in 317 BC (DS 1940) Howeverthere is no evidence that he introduced his own son to warfare atan equally young age

Demetriusrsquo first independent command was in 312 at the battleof Gaza when he was about twenty-five (Plut Dem 2 DS 198193) Antigonus would have been an impressionable youngster ofabout seven years of age

In his early years Antigonus probably did not spend much timewith his father A very young boy would normally be with his motherbut Antigonus may have remained with his mother well intoadolescence because of his fatherrsquos activities At least part of hisearly years were no doubt spent at the court of his grandfatherAntigonus I Monophthalmos in Celaenae in Asia Minor where hewould have received his early education and where his father wasat least occasionally present Phila and the twelve-year-old Antigonuswere no doubt elsewhere when Demetrius married Eurydice ofAthens in 307 and when he took Lamia as his mistress at Cyprus in306 We do not know where Phila was or where Antigonus wasalthough he must have been aware of his fatherrsquos triumphal entryinto Athens and the great victory over the Ptolemaic fleet off CyprusThere is no record of the presence of Antigonus at the siege ofRhodes in 3054 where Demetrius earned the eponym ldquoCityBesiegerrdquo but since he was already about sixteen it is not impossible5

It is perhaps more likely that the young Antigonus was well into hisstudies in Athens at this time and went to Rhodes briefly if at all

Antigonus was not likely to have been with his father whenDemetrius took yet another wife Deidameia the sister of Pyrrhusin 303 BC (Plut Dem 25 Pyrr 4) He was also probably not presentat the disastrous Battle of Ipsus a year later although Pyrrhus was6

And it was Pyrrhus who was placed in charge of Greece notAntigonus when Demetrius sailed to Thrace shortly thereafter (PlutDem 31 Pyrr 4) A little later Antigonus may have joined Phila

THE EARLY YEARS

7

and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sister Stratonike toSeleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic mission to her brotherCassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Where was Antigonus

One must wonder at the thoughts of the twenty-year-oldAntigonus observing Pyrrhus a year younger than he well-employedby Demetrius and entrusted with considerable responsibility Yetthe subsequent relationship between Antigonus and Pyrrhus thougha constant political rivalry seems to have involved no personalhostility at all but rather mutual respect

And so in the first twenty years of his life Antigonus probablyheard about his father far more often than he saw him He heardhow his father won military victories he heard that his father andhis grandfather were addressed as kings He heard about the deathof his grandfather and the defeat of Demetrius at the Battle of IpsusHe knew very well about the warm welcome given to Demetrius bythe Athenians when Demetrius liberated the city from CassanderAntigonus probably resided in Athens for most of the years between307 and 301 When news reached the city of the results at IpsusAntigonus and everyone else closely associated with Demetrius foundit necessary to leave Athens (Plut Dem 303) He had learned whatit felt like to be welcomed in Athens and he now knew how it feltto be unwelcome there

8

2

THE APPRENTICE KING

The Athenian insistence that Demetrius his family and possessionsbe removed from Athens after his defeat at Ipsus can easily beexplained There were three reasons first and most obvious nobodylikes a loser If the Athenians wanted to stay on good terms withthose who were powerful as I have argued elsewhere7 then theywould want to avoid any association with someone who had justbeen decisively defeated by the powerful Second Demetrius hadnot been much help during his recent stay in Athens Initially hissupport of the democracy was very popular and very muchappreciated especially as it was in contrast to Cassanderrsquos impositionof the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron who was removed byDemetrius in 307 But Cassander continued to attempt to reasserthis control of Athens during the so-called Four Yearsrsquo War (307ndash303BC) in which Demetrius was often absent as for the naval battle offSalamis in Cyprus (306) and the siege of Rhodes (3054) Indeedthe Athenians were instrumental in arranging a negotiated end ofthat siege precisely because they needed Demetrius back in Athens(Plut Dem 22ndash23) Gonatas probably remained in Athens duringmost of this time but was too young to be of much help Variousassociates and partisans of Demetrius were no doubt helpful butthe Athenians by and large had to fend for themselves againstCassander There are several references in honorary decrees forAthenians who were active in raising or deploying forces againstCassander (Thymochares of Sphettos father of Phaidros and KalliasDemochares the nephew of Demosthenes and Olympiodorus)8

Finally Demetrius had long since worn out his welcome in AthensThe period 3032 was strife-ridden he still had supporters andsycophants (such as Stratocles who suggested that Demetriusrsquo wordsshould be considered as coming from the gods) but many were

THE APPRENTICE KING

9

becoming resentful of his increasingly autocratic manner includinghis decision to take up residence in the Parthenon with his collectionof hetairai with special honors and perquisites for his favorite Lamiathe flute-player from Cyprus It is to this period that the voluntary orinvoluntary exile of several Athenian politicians must be datedamong them Demochares and the comic poet Philippides (PlutDem 24 27) If he was no help against Cassander if he was adisgrace and a distraction to political and social life in Athens andthen lost much of his international prestige and power in battlethere was no reason to acquiesce in his continued presence

The events of the next few years are not well known Demetriusescaped from Ipsus with 9000 troops a great part of his fleet hadgone over to Ptolemy but not all of it He still possessed garrisonsin Corinth which he had acquired from Cassander in 303 (DS20103) and probably Megara and Chalkis No doubt there wereother garrisons and supporters in some cities of the Peloponnesewhere Demetrius had long been active and he still had friends(and no doubt some mercenaries) in a few cities of Asia Minor Onecan guess that Demetrius Phila and Antigonus were domiciledprimarily in Corinth for the next few years (although Demetriuspersonally seems never to have stayed in any one place very long)Corinth was the chief base of operations for Demetrius in theseyears from which he embarked upon several adventures in thePeloponnesus and in central Greece It was probably here that fatherand son first became really acquainted and during these years thatAntigonus gained military experience

The victors of Ipsus soon had a falling out Their alliance had notbeen based on any common interest but on a common fear ofAntigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes With thatfear considerably diminished if not removed they began once againto mistrust one another It is in this context that another round ofmarriage alliances was made in an attempt to gain position orinfluence In 299 BC Lysimachus married Ptolemyrsquos daughter Arsinoeumldivorcing her aunt Nicaea in the process his son Agathocles marriedanother daughter of Ptolemy Lysandra Seleucus married Demetriusrsquodaughter Stratonike and Demetrius was betrothed to Ptolemaisdaughter of Ptolemy (the marriage was not consummated for severalyears she was no doubt quite young)9 In spite of his defeat atIpsus Demetrius was still a force to be reckoned with and thereforevery much a part of the diplomatic maneuverings

Antigonus now about twenty or twenty-one years old may have

THE APPRENTICE KING

10

joined Phila and Demetrius in Syria for the betrothal of his sisterStratonike to Seleucus Phila was then sent on a diplomatic missionto her brother Cassander (Plut Dem 31ndash32) Her mission was tosmooth some ruffled feathers Cassander was not a part of the recentnegotiations and marriage alliances and was not pleased with theopportunistic military adventures of Demetrius in Asia Minor

The situation in Athens was chaotic The removal of Demetriusand his associates had not improved the situation at all Cassanderhad invaded the Peloponnese while Demetrius was absent for theIpsus campaign and it may be this episode which presented athreat to Eleusis and caused Olympiodorus to rally the localpopulation to defeat ldquothe Macedoniansrdquo (Paus 1263) The comicpoet Philippides had apparently been resident at the court ofLysimachus since about 3032 his attempts to get money fromLysimachus for Athens may have begun even before Ipsus at anyrate by 2998 Lysimachus had provided large gifts of grain andunderwrote some of the costs of the Great Panathenaia of 298 (7G II2657) Gifts of money andor grain to Athens by the powerfulkings are often seen as indications of the relationship of Athens toparticular kings at that point in time and rightly so in many instancesOne can conclude from this episode that Lysimachus was influentialin Athens in the years after Ipsus on the other hand Athens wasfrequently faced with food shortages often at a crisis level Theneed might be urgent to get food into the city as soon as possiblefrom whatever source All the hellenistic kings could benefit fromthe gratitude of Athens the university town the polis with a glorioushistory At some times it was worth investing considerable resourcesfor the good will of Athens at others perhaps a small amount ifconvenient was in order It may not be appropriate to draw sweepingconclusions from the evidence of a gift

The same Philippides had arranged for the burial at his ownexpense of Athenian casualties at Ipsus It is worth noting that therewere Athenians there Athens as a political entity was not a partyin that battle It should be remembered that although the kingsgenerally fought their wars with mercenaries mercenaries could beof any citizenship and no doubt many Athenians served on allsides The best known examples are Kallias of Sphettos the Athenianwho spent most of his adult life in the service of Ptolemy (theKallias decree Agora I 7295) and Heracleitus of Athmonon theAthenian who spent his career in the service of Antigonos Gonatas(Syll3454) This fact may explain some apparent shortages of

THE APPRENTICE KING

11

manpower in Athens many of the men capable of soldiering hadhired out elsewhere

However great the influence of Lysimachus Cassander was notyet out of the picture One of his partisans Lachares eventuallyseized power in Athens under circumstances which are not at allclear The evidence is a brief mention by Plutarch in his Life ofDemetrius (33) a brief reference in Pausanias (1257) and thenarrative of a very fragmentary papyrus document (POxyXVIII2082=FGrH2577) Plutarch merely indicates that Demetriusbesieged the city to remove Lachares after which he acted upon anopportunity to install himself as king of Macedonia The siege ofAthens probably took place in 296295 BC The papyrus fragment isin a collection of Olympic victor lists with which it ends but notbefore offering a narrative passage which states that ldquothe generalsof the Athenians estasiasan [revoltedrose up] Charias was thehoplite general and Lachares was in command of mercenariesrdquo andldquoCharias assaulted the Acropolishellipoude epoiese ton demon trepheinrdquo(ldquobut he failed to turnpersuade the demosrdquo) and ldquohe [subject unclear]drove off Chariashellipthey killed by vote all who fled into the templeCharias and Peithias and Lysandros son of Kalliphon and AmeiniasApollodoros made the motionhelliphe [subject unclear] besieged thosein the Piraeusrdquo and the document then narrates the death ofCassander and the succession of his sons The narrative next seemsto describe the looting of Athens and melting down of the gold onthe statue of Athena by Lachares which is known from Pausaniaswho considered Lachares the most wicked tyrant who ever lived

At least some of these events seem to precede the death ofCassander in 2987 The siege by Demetrius was a bitter one wehear that Epicurus counted out beans to sustain his students sincefood was so short (DL 1010 Plut Dem 34) Demetrius could nothave maintained such a close siege of the city if he did not controlaccess through the Piraeus The papyrus document makes referenceto hostilities in the Piraeus and it is probably here that one shouldplace the exploit of Olympiodorus who was later honored forldquorescuingrdquo the Piraeus among other noteworthy deeds10

Lachares no doubt established a tyranny in the usual fashion byfirst becoming popular and persuasive His relationship withCassander may have been clear from the beginning and seen as anadvantage If Cassanderrsquos friend were in power in Athens thenCassander might no longer try to regain control of the city andestablish an oligarchy or tyranny as before with Demetrius of

THE APPRENTICE KING

12

Phaleron This might seem acceptable provided that Cassanderrsquosfriend (Lachares) were not trying to set himself up as tyrant Whenhe did fierce opposition arose The words in the papyrus documentimply something very much like civil war Olympiodorus who laterwas supportive of Demetrius seized the Piraeus from the troops ofLachares and shortly afterward Demetrius took the opportunity tointervene in the civil war in Athens assisted by Olympiodorus whoinvited him in to the Piraeus11 Lachares while still in control of theassembly caused a decree to be passed sentencing to death anyonewho proposed negotiations with Demetrius But once he hadabandoned hope and fled Athens the Athenians welcomedDemetrius into the city and ldquogaverdquo him the Piraeus and Munychia(which he no doubt already possessed) in gratitude for rescuingthem from Lachares He took the liberty of adding a garrison onthe Museum Hill in Athens itself He also established officialsldquoacceptable to the peoplerdquomdashclearly also acceptable to him (PlutDem 344) Phaidros of Sphettos continued in office as generalepi ten paraskeuein he had been elected to that office for 2965and the decree in his honor (I G II2 682) indicates that he hadbeen elected twice in that year This can only mean that his originalelection took place under relatively ldquonormalrdquo procedures but whileLachares was in power If he had been a fervent partisan of Lacharesit is doubtful that Demetrius would have accepted his continuancein office in fact after the successful siege by Demetrius it isdoubtful that the Athenians would have re-elected a man closelyassociated with one just expelled The troubles involving Lacharesmay in fact have been precipitated by the fact that the faction-ridden Athenians had elected to office various officials who wereadamantly opposed to each other The ldquostasisrdquo of the generalsreferred to in the papyrus document suggests the armed oppositionof Phaidros and Olympiodorus to Lachares who had also beenelected that same year Demetrius apparently arranged a specialelection after he entered Athens Phaidros was again elected tothe same office

Lacharesrsquo initial popularity prior to the outbreak of civil war couldhave lasted from a few months to a year or more The ensuing civilwar may have lasted for many months perhaps nearly a year Thepassage of some considerable time is suggested by Plutarchrsquos account(Dem 3334) which although very summary in nature places severaltime-consuming events between the initial decision of Demetrius tointervene and his actual siege of the city He was in Asia when he

THE APPRENTICE KING

13

learned of the trouble involving Lachares He made ready and sailedfor Athens His fleet encountered a severe storm (winter) and hesuffered heavy losses of ships and manpower He began militaryactivities in Attica which were ineffective he then sent word toAsia to dispatch another fleet and while waiting for its arrival hecampaigned in the Peloponnese to improve or shore up his positionsthere (no details are available) During one encounter he waswounded by a javelin bolt to his jaw After he recovered from thiswound he continued to campaign successfully against somePeloponnesian cities which had become disaffected He marchedto Eleusis and Rhamnous in Attica and gained control of thosefortresses A Ptolemaic fleet was seen off Aegina near Athens butat that point his fleet of 300 ships had arrived and the Ptolemaicfleet withdrew It is at that point that he began the siege of AthensThis probably did not exceed a year in duration in view of thechronic shortages of food in Athens the city could be starved intosubmission within a relatively short periodmdashproviding of coursethat the blockade was complete and the Piraeus was not availableto the Athenians as is apparent in this instance

It was during this general time that Demetrius received someunsettling news Lysimachus had taken control of some of his Asianpossessions Ptolemy had taken most of Cyprus except for the cityof Salamis and his mother and children then resident in Cyprushad been captured (they were well-treated by Ptolemy and laterreleased) There is no mention of his wife or wives It is interestingto note that his mother Stratonike still lived The children mentionedcannot be the children of Phila Antigonus Gonatas was alreadyabout twenty-five years old and his sister Stratonike was alreadymarried to Seleucus Demetrius had not yet consummated hismarriage to Ptolemais nor yet married Lanassa and so these mustbe children of Deidameia now dead or less likely Eurydice ofAthens whom he had married in 306mdashor other illegitimate childrenwhose mother is unknown

Antigonus was certainly present at the siege of Athens in 295 BCwhich resulted in a firm control of the city by Demetrius Theeponymous archon of Athens was normally selected by lot but thearchon for 2943 and again for 2932 was Olympiodorus (IG II2689 349) Directly or indirectly Demetrius was appointing thearchons He shortly thereafter succeeded in making himself king inMacedonia (by murdering Alexander the surviving son of Cassander)At this time Antigonus was serving in his fatherrsquos army (Plut Dem

THE APPRENTICE KING

14

373) he must have been about twenty-five although Plutarch refersto him as a meirakion a ldquoyouthrdquo

Perhaps a year later he was placed in charge of Boeotia byDemetrius during the campaign in Boeotia Antigonus won atleast one battle and conducted at least one siege in full commandwithout the presence of Demetrius Plutarchrsquos summary of theseevents (Dem 39) is naturally lacking detail Demetrius had initiallyestablished friendly relations with the Boeotians but at theinstigation of the Spartan exile Cleonymus the Thebans ldquorevoltedrdquoDemetrius brought up siege engines Cleonymus withdrew andthe Thebans surrendered Demetrius exacted tribute installedgarrisons and placed Hieronymus of Cardia in charge as an overseerof affairs All of that didnrsquot seem to do much good Demetriustraveled with his army (an army) to Thrace to take advantage ofthe apparent absence of Lysimachus (who returned too quickly)and in his absence the Boeotians revolted again He quickly turnedback to Boeotia to find that his son Antigonus had already defeatedthe Boeotians in battle At this point Pyrrhus invaded ThessalyDemetrius went north to engage him leaving Antigonus in chargeof the siege of Thebes Pyrrhus retreated and Demetrius returnedto Thebes Although Antigonus may have been able (or expected)to rely on the guidance of the more experienced Hieronymus itseems that in these actions he was acting on his own and wasexpected to be capable of looking after the interests of DemetriusHieronymus in any case was not known for his military successeshis talents were more in the political arena This reference inPlutarch (Dem 37ndash39) is the earliest reference to any military activityon the part of Antigonus Gonatas That he was still learning isperhaps reflected in an anecdote told by Plutarch (Dem 40)Demetrius had undertaken a rigorous siege of the city of Thebesin company with his son Antigonus and Antigonus questionedthe apparently unnecessary casualties Demetrius was angered tohave his tactics questioned and retorted with something equivalentto ldquowhat do you carerdquo But he nevertheless altered his tacticssomewhat and treated the city once taken with considerableleniency The episode reveals that Demetrius was not quite readyto consider his son an equal but he was ready and willing tolisten to him it also indicates that the Antigonid tradition ofcooperation between father and son established by the elderAntigonus with Demetrius would continue By c 295 at the ageof about twenty-five Antigonus had come into his own He was

THE APPRENTICE KING

15

the son and heir-apparent of the king of Macedonia it wouldnever be otherwise

The initial popularity of Demetrius in Macedonia was probablydue more to the reputation of his wife the noble Phila daughter ofAntipater than to his own flamboyant character which made himpopular with the troops Hostile sources (there are no other kind)insist that he was not a competent governor Antigonus could learnfrom this too Antigonus by character or intent was not an especiallycolorful character and his chief public virtues were competenceand efficiency

It seems consistent with the evidence to suggest that whenDemetrius was King of Macedonia from 295 to 287 BC he spentmuch of his time in Macedonia and in his newly founded city ofDemetrias in Thessaly and relatively little in Athens while Antigonusspent more time in Athens and less in Macedonia Later sources arehostile to both kings but for different reasons The general pictureof Demetrius is one of an incompetent king who lacked the patienceto govern properly and was often impulsive in his dealings withothers The criticism of Antigonus Gonatas on the other hand hasnothing to do with incompetence in Macedonia (indeed what littlereference there is to his relationship with the Macedonians isfavorable) rather he is violently criticized for his interference in theaffairs of Greek states and that interference was all too competentand effective He seems to have understood the Greeks far betterthan his father and had far more solid personal connections

That Antigonus spent much of his time in Athens during thisperiod is further suggested by the fact that his illegitimate sonHalkyoneus whose mother was the Athenian courtesan Demo wasborn about 290 BC (Athenaeus 13578a) Halkyoneus appears as aninexperienced youth fighting alongside his father at Argos in 272(see below) Antigonus would have been in his late twenties

During his years as king of Macedonia Demetrius controlled thecity of Athens in two ways he maintained garrisons at Piraeus andon the Museum Hill in the center of Athens and he also influencedthe selection of magistrates even though he did not alter the formof government or interfere directly in electoral processes (Plut Dem344) It may very well be that Antigonus was more welcome inAthens than Demetrius and the ldquoinfluencerdquo exerted on the bodypolitic was that of Antigonus Among the politicians whom Antigonuscame to know was Phaidros of Sphettos whose generalship in 2965 was mentioned above He was also elected to several other offices

THE APPRENTICE KING

16

during the next seven years Phaidros was at the very leastcooperative with Demetrius and Antigonus (I G II2682) Antigonuswas also no doubt acquainted with Olympiodorus the veteranAthenian politician who was cooperative or at least neutral down tohis last appearance in the sources in or about 280 BC He also heldpublic office in Athens in 2943 and in 2932 years in which theinfluence of Demetrius was high (Paus 1261 PHerc 1418 col30 IG II2 649 389) Antigonus was no doubt equally familiarwith certain less cooperative politicians Demochares a nephewof the great orator Demosthenes was in self-imposed exile at thecourt of King Lysimachus of Thrace because of his antipathy toDemetrius (Plut Mor 851) There was also Kallias of Sphettos thebrother of Phaidros who spent his entire career in the militaryservice of King Ptolemy of Egypt (The Kallias Decree published byTShear Hesperia 1978)

Antigonus probably gained additional military as well aspolitical experience during the nearly seven years that Demetriuswas king of Macedonia Demetrius was an active king usuallyoutside of Macedonia (which is the reason for much criticism ofhim as king) There were campaigns against the Aetolians wholater would be on rather friendly terms with Antigonus and againstPyrrhus The Pythian Games of 290 were blocked by the Aetoliansand Demetrius arranged for them to be held at Athens instead(Plut Dem 40)

It was probably in the spring of 287 that Demetrius was expelledas king of Macedonia in circumstances which leave little doubt thatthe event was carefully planned and coordinated Macedonia wasinvaded from the west by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and simultaneouslyfrom the east by King Lysimachus of Thrace A Ptolemaic fleet enteredGreek waters and at about the same time or shortly thereafterAthens rose in revolt The impetus for this concerted action againsthim had been a significant buildup of military might on his part foran announced invasion of Asia most of it under the control of hisrival and now son-in-law Seleucus Demetrius seemed to be aimingfor nothing less than the restoration of Alexanderrsquos empire underhis leadership He had warships under construction at Piraeus PellaChalcis and Corinth he was collecting mercenaries at Demetriasand other places Plutarch (Dem 43) gives the totals at this time of98000 infantry 12000 cavalry and 500 warshipsmdashprobablyincluding some ldquofifteensrdquo and ldquosixteensrdquo

The event receives only brief and vague reference in several

THE APPRENTICE KING

17

inscriptions and other sources12 and so the details must remainunclear One can speculate that something like the following tookplace at the first sign of trouble in Macedonia Demetrius (who waselsewhere probably in Demetrias) hastened to Macedonia and leftAntigonus if he was in Athens at all at the time (he may have beenin Corinth or elsewhere) ldquoin charge of Greecerdquo (Plut Dem 442)Antigonus was not present at the final departure of Demetrius fromMacedonia His troops had mutinied lacking support he escapedfrom Macedonia almost alone and began traveling throughout Greeceto rebuild his forces Antigonus was probably not in Athens at theparticular time when something happened which resulted in armedactivity

Kallias an Athenian citizen in mercenary service with Ptolemywas active with a force of mercenaries in the countryside aroundAthens and received some support from a Ptolemaic fleet underthe command of Zenon operating nearby The fleet and Kalliasprobably arrived in Athens in the early summer of 287 and beganplanning for a full-scale action against Demetrius Phaidros whohad been elected hoplite general for 2887 (IG II2 682) limitedtheir effectiveness in some way A line has been excised from thedecree in his honor what remains gives him credit for taking careof the food supply Kallias and Zenon set up a base on the nearbyisland of Andros to await events In July of 287 Phaidros was againelected hoplite general When the news of the departure of Demetriusfrom Macedonia reached Zenon and Kallias probably in the lateautumn of 287 they returned to the city There are five lines excisedfrom the decree for Phaidros at this point He was apparently deposedfrom office and a new election was held (the decree refers to Phaidroshaving been elected general ldquofirstrdquo that is somebody else was thesecond person to hold the office in that year) The garrison on theMuseum Hill held and the troops of Demetrius from the Piraeusgarrison not only maintained their position but were active againstKallias in the Attic countryside13 Kallias achieved some success inbringing in the crops in the following spring An honorary decreewas voted for Zenon in the summer of 286 for this action At aboutthat time summer 286 (archon Diocles 2865) Demochares returnedto Athens after receiving large amounts of money from LysimachusPtolemy and even a certain Antipater probably the surviving son ofCassander previous king of Macedonia (Plut Mor 851 d-f) Themoney was needed for food and mercenaries to enable Athens towithstand the imminent siege by Demetrius Between his return to

THE APPRENTICE KING

18

Athens and the closing of the city by Demetrius Demochares madeseveral embassies seeking help and may also have regained Eleusisfor Athens that is the removal of Demetriusrsquo garrison there (but seebelow this may have happened in late 285 or early 284)

Demetrius left Macedonia as a private citizen abandoned bymost of his troops probably in late summer or early autumn of 287BC Antigonus was certainly not with him (he had been left incharge of affairs in Greece) but his wife Phila was Both escaped tothe city of Cassandreia where Phila ended her life by poisondespondent at the turn of events Things certainly looked hopelessDemetrius began making plans to recoup some of his losses Hisreal goal after all had been the conquest of Asia

The siege of Athens by Demetrius began in the autumn of 286nearly a year after he left Macedonia Athens had sought help fromPyrrhus now joint king of Macedonia but it was all over before hegot there The money procured by Demochares either was notenough or for their own reasons Ptolemy Pyrrhus and Lysimachusthought it desirable to negotiate an end to the siege We do notknow with what military strength Demetrius arrived before Athensbut it was enough to encourage negotiations His travels aroundGreece for the preceding months must have been successfulPtolemy sent his diplomatic advisor Sostratos to represent himArtemidorus of Perinthus represented Lysimachus Pyrrhus waspresent in person (as was Demetrius) and the philosopher Crateswas chosen to represent the Athenians14 There is no certainevidence for the involvement of Antigonus although it is possible15

The terms of the peace were essentially status quo Demetriusaccepted his expulsion from Macedonia but retained his garrisonsin Greece including the Piraeus and the Museum Hill in Athens(Plut Dem 462)

Phaidros seems to have played no further part in the revolt andthere is no certain evidence that Olympiodorus played any parteither although many scholars prefer to see him as the leader of therevolt and to assume that he also recovered the Museum Hill as apart of this event16 It is likely that the leaders of the short-livedrevolt were Kallias and Demochares both of whom had closeconnections with kings who were actually planning concerted actionagainst Demetrius on all fronts The activity in Athens was clearlycoordinated with the invasion of Macedonia by Lysimachus andPyrrhus and the arrival of the Ptolemaic fleet Demochares was atthe court of Lysimachus no doubt planning his return to Athens

THE APPRENTICE KING

19

and Kallias was still in the employ of Ptolemy The well-laid plansfell apart because of certain unknowns which could not beanticipated the loyalty of certain Athenians to Demetrius (or at leastthe unwillingness to oppose him) for example Phaidros andprobably Olympiodorus as well the loyalty and competence of hisgarrisons in Piraeus and Museum Hill and the resourcefulness ofDemetrius himself The expulsion of Demetrius from Macedoniawas accomplished it was probably too much to expect that hewould be completely destroyed He was weakened and thatwas enough for the moment There was no need for Athens toendure more

The one certain result of the revolt was that the Athenians tookgreater control over their internal government the democracy hadcontinued to exist in form but Demetrius had exerted considerableinfluence on who held which offices He would no longer be thereto exert that influence and perhaps there was agreement thatAntigonus who would remain in Greece would not attempt toinfluence the Athenians (Plut Dem 46)

Demetrius sailed off to Asia for his final adventure whileAntigonus now about thirty-three years old remained ldquoin chargerdquoof whatever Antigonid possessions remained in Greece This includedCorinth Demetrias Chalcis the Piraeus the garrison in Athens andquite a few smaller garrisoned cities as well as a very uneasy trucewith Pyrrhus When in the summer of 285 Demetrius attacked thepossessions of Lysimachus in Asia Minor Lysimachus induced Pyrrhusto counter by making an invasion of Thessaly thus threatening oneof the strongpoints of Demetrius in Greece the citadel of DemetriasAntigonus was successful in turning back Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 12)

Antigonus certainly had his hands full Demetrius had found muchneed for military activity in central Greece and the Peloponneseduring his reign as king of Macedonia the problems no doubtremained exacerbated by the hostility of Pyrrhus and Lysimachusin Macedonia Antigonus must have had little time to worry aboutAthens and Attica A few months later near the end of winter earlyin the year 284 Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus News of thecapture of Demetrius precipitated the expulsion of Pyrrhus from hishalf of Macedonia by Lysimachus who no longer needed hiscooperation It may also have sparked activity in Athens The decreehonoring Demochares indicates that he recovered Eleusis for Athensnot long after his return in the late summer of 286 (Plut Mor 851 d-f) The decree honoring Philippides lauds his financing of the

THE APPRENTICE KING

20

Eleusinia in the year of Isaios archonship 2843 (IG II2 657 lines39ndash48) The early summer of 284 after news arrived of the captureof Demetrius is a likely time for Democharesrsquo recovery of Eleusisalthough it could have happened a year earlier when Antigonuswas occupied in Thessaly The Philippides decree passed in theyear 2832 contains references to longstanding hopes to somedayregain the Piraeus which clearly has not yet happened (lines 34ndash35) This same year 2832 is the date of a letter of Epicurus whichrefers to a desire to ldquodestroy the hated Macedoniansrdquo17 ObviouslyAthens was restive

On the news of the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus Antigonusseems to have done everything humanly possible to secure his fatherrsquosrelease (Plut Dem 51) while continuing to act in his fatherrsquos nameOnly at the death of Demetrius in the autumn of 283 did Antigonusbegin to consider himself king and he did in fact later date hiskingship from 283 BC18 But in 283 he was ldquokingrdquo of very little hehad loyal garrisons in several cities controlled several ports in Greecehad important ldquofriendsrdquo in some cities and mostly he had a strongclaim to be king of Macedonia But his was not the only claim andin fact Lysimachus was currently exercising that power alone oncehe had driven out Pyrrhus Antigonus Gonatas was only a potentialking the challenge now was to turn potential into reality

21

3

ANARCHY ANDRECOVERY

The years from 286 to 283 had not been happy ones for AntigonusGonatas His father had been deposed as king of Macedonia hismother had committed suicide Athens had joined in the hostilityagainst Demetrius and then the final campaign of Demetrius hadproved unsuccessful and fatal Antigonus had a fleet of someconsequence at his disposal he used it in impressive ceremony toescort the ashes of his father back to Greece for burial in hisnamesake city of Demetrias (Plut Dem 53) The Ptolemaic fleethad gained in power and prominence in recent years at the expenseof Demetrius and no doubt Ptolemyrsquos cooperation was requiredfor the grand display of the Antigonid fleet This should not besurprising Over several generations the relationship betweenPtolemies Seleucids and Antigonidsmdashand Pyrrhus alsomdashwas oneof very aggressive but honorable competition There was littlepersonal animosity (Lysimachus and Cassander were genuinelyhostile to the Antigonids on a personal basis) No doubt there wasa sense of the mutability of fortune Ptolemy I Soter himself woulddie within a few months he had already brought his sonPhiladelphus into full partnership with him and was aware of theimpermanence of worldly power

Antigonus also had friends and loyal garrison commanders inGreece some friends would prove to be more constant than othersand not all garrison commanders remained loyal He must have hadsome doubts The garrison at Corinth was by now under thecommand of his half-brother Craterus (son of Phila and the elderCraterus) whose loyalty was not in doubt Heracleides commandedthe garrison in the Piraeus and he would prove trustworthy

The decade between about 285 and 275 BC was clearly a chaoticperiod it is more so for us because of the nature of the survivingevidence We must attempt to piece together events described in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

22

isolation in fragmentary sources Even the relative chronology ofevents is uncertain still more controversial are the absolute dates19

Nevertheless it is likely that this decade would seem chaotic even ifwe had full documentation because it was in fact chaotic

The problem seems to have been too many players on the stageand almost all of them powerful actors In a sense the ultimatecause of the chaos in this decade can be traced to the complexmarriage alliances entered into by many of the hellenistic kingsand particularly to the machinations of one woman Arsinoeuml II Theevents may be briefly described somewhat as follows

While Demetrius was still alivemdashalthough a prisoner of SeleucusmdashPyrrhus caused some problems for Antigonus by an invasion ofThessaly and an attempt to dislodge the Antigonid garrisons fromsome Greek cities We do not know the details but these efforts metwith little success The real enemy of Pyrrhus was Lysimachus whosuccessfully drove him out of his half of Macedonia (Plut Pyrr 12)Lysimachus was also the chief enemy of Antigonus Not only washe currently ruling the Macedonia to which Antigonus laid claimbut it was Lysimachus after all who had offered to pay Seleucushandsomely to kill Demetrius rather than maintain him as a prisonerSeleucus refused but news of this attempt certainly did not endearLysimachus to Antigonus (Plut Dem 51)

Lysimachus was not much loved by his family either In 299Lysimachus had married Arsinoeuml daughter of Ptolemy I and Bereniceand at the same time arranged the marriage of his son (by a previousmarriage to Nicaea) Agathocles to Lysandra the daughter of PtolemyI and Eurydice Arsinoeuml had three sons by Lysimachus whoseposition she wished to ensure as against that of her stepsonAgathocles and any children by him and her half-sister LysandraWhen her eldest son also named Ptolemy was about seventeen (c282 BC) she arranged to plant enough suspicion in the mind ofLysimachus so that he executed his son Agathocles This was anunpopular move in Macedonia especially with Agathoclesrsquo wifeLysandra who fled for safety and support to Seleucus

Seleucus attempted to take advantage of this situation and theresult was the Battle of Corupedium in early 281 where Lysimachuswas defeated in battle and killed Arsinoeuml fled to Cassandreia forsafety Shortly thereafter Seleucus crossed from Asia Minor to Thracein an attempt to make himself king of Macedonia but was murderedby Ptolemy Ceraunus a full brother of Lysandra and half-brother toArsinoeuml Ceraunus then proclaimed himself king of Macedonia

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

23

Antigonus who possessed a significant fleet (because at least a partof Demetriusrsquo fleet had returned to him after the surrender ofDemetrius) attempted to invade Macedonia but was repulsed byCeraunus20

It is in this state of affairs that Pyrrhus decided it would be moreuseful to respond to the call for help from Tarentum and spendsome time conquering Italy and Sicily He asked for assistance fromPtolemy Ceraunus and from Antigonus Gonatas He probablyreceived some troops from Ceraunus although Antigonus apparentlydid not assist him in spite of veiled threats from Pyrrhus of theconsequences of his refusal (Justin 253)

When seen from the vantage point of the Greek cities whichwere still nominally independent even though their actions hadbeen somewhat circumscribed by various kings these years were aperfect opportunity to rearrange things to their liking if possible Itwas now that the Achaean League was founded and this is alsoapproximately when changes of government and the establishmentor disestablishment of tyrannies took place in some small cities andit is probably to this period that one should assign the defection ofthe mercenary Strombichus and the Athenian capture of the garrisonon the Museum Hill in the city of Athens

An Athenian decree (I G II2 666 667) honors Strombichos whowas second in command of the Antigonid garrison on the MuseumHill because he had decided to betray his commander and assistthe Athenians in removing the Macedonian garrison (the event tookplace at some unspecified earlier time the decree was passed in2665) Pausanias (1263) records a statue of Olympiodorus andsummarizes the deeds for which he was honored the greatest ofthese was his capture of the Museum garrison at a time when theAthenians pondering their former status and the changes of fortunewhich had befallen them elected him general He stormed the fortwith old men and boys and captured the place with very fewcasualties

The two events are obviously related The assistance of themercenary Strombichos is what made possible the storming of theMuseum by Olympiodorus with a small band of old men and boysThe likely time is late in the year 283 or early 282 news of thedeath of Demetrius had arrived and this followed full knowledgeof the difficulties facing his son Antigonus from Pyrrhus andLysimachus the fact that Eleusis had recently been recovered andthat there had been continuous agitation from Lysimachus through

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

24

the Athenian comic poet Philippides to recover the Piraeus (IG II2

657 line 35 dated by the archon Euthios to 2832) and no doubtthe Museum as well Only three years earlier Athens had actedagainst Demetrius in connection with his expulsion from MacedoniaThat ldquorevolutionrdquo was not a complete success (he still garrisonedthe Museum and Piraeus) but was not a complete failure eitherThe lifting of the siege by Demetrius was negotiated almostimmediately before any harm was done to Athens and they hadsucceeded in removing some Macedonian troops from their midst(the Kallias decree refers to driving the enemy troops out of thecity immediately before mentioning that the Museum was stillgarrisoned and there was trouble from the Macedonian troops inthe Piraeus) More importantly they had succeeded in regainingalmost full control of their internal government archons were againselected by lot and not appointed by Demetrius (or Antigonus)This string of relative successes and the opportunity provided bythe distraction of Antigonus emboldened the Athenians to try toregain the Museum Hill (successfully) and the Piraeus(unsuccessfully)

The reason Olympiodorus could muster only old men and boyswas due in part to the fact that many able-bodied men were onmercenary service elsewhere but mostly to the fact that the bestavailable soldiers were to be used in another nearly simultaneousoperation the attempt to recover the Piraeus Polyaenus (5171)records the incident As with Strombichos at the Museum garrisonthe Athenians attempted to subvert an important mercenary this timeHierocles a Karian who was apparently second in command at thePiraeus garrison He pretended to join their plot but secretly betrayedthem to his commander Heracleides When the planned assault tookplace the gates were opened by Hierocles to an ambush and 420Athenians died in this unsuccessful attempt to regain the Piraeus21

Kallias the Athenian in mercenary service with Ptolemy mayhave been in the city at the time he was certainly there shortlyafterward no doubt anticipating a reprisal from Antigonus His decree(Agora I 7295) records a crisis in the city shortly after the accessionof Ptolemy II early in 282 BC He used his good relationship withPtolemy to acquire gifts of money and grain for the city Perhapsthis was a precaution against any impending action by Antigonus inreprisal for the loss of the Museum garrison and the attempt on thePiraeus but it is just as likely a routine request and grant of thekinds of favor Athens always sought and needed

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

25

There is no record of any subsequent action by Antigonus againstAthens He was no doubt fully occupied elsewhere Apparentlyother Greek cities like Athens took advantage of his seemingweakness and tested his mettle We have a vague reference in Justin22

to a war between Antigonus and ldquothe Greek citiesrdquo (which ones) atthis time and another reference to a war between Antigonus andAntiochus of the Seleucid Empire We know of no significantencounter between Antigonus and Antiochus and in fact a peacetreaty was eventually signed by these two which would keep thetwo dynasties on friendly terms for the next several generations(Justin 251)

The ldquowarrdquo of Antigonus with the Greeks seems to have had nomajor consequences This is at least partly due to the garrisons thatAntigonus controlled at the outset of these troubles His strongpointat Demetrias in Thessaly was apparently never seriously threatenedand he maintained garrisons at Chalcis on Euboea as well as in theAttic forts of Rhamnous and Sunium Of particular value was thestrong garrison at Corinth on the isthmus commanded by his loyalhalf-brother Craterus He maintained control of the Piraeus thegarrison commander was Heracleides who had been appointed byDemetrius shortly after he left for his Asian expedition late in 286Heracleides was in command during the unsuccessful Athenianattempt to capture the Piraeus and he was still commanding thegarrison at some point between 280 and 277 when he was involvedin ransom negotiations for a prisoner under his control a man namedMithres who was a former financial official for Lysimachus Theincident almost surely takes place shortly after the death ofLysimachus who seems not to be involved in the negotiations andwould have been if alive The Athenian Olympiodorus was alsoinvolved in these negotiations (PHerc 1418 col 32) although hisprecise role is not clear One might suppose he was acting as anintermediary something of an ldquohonest brokerrdquo between the officialnegotiators

Olympiodorus had been supportive of Demetrius earlier but hissuccessful assault on the Museum Hill was clearly in opposition toAntigonus A few years later we again find him in a generallycooperative role during the ransom negotiations for Mithres Onecan only surmise that he was first and foremost a patriot and apractical politician as well If it were necessary to accept the influenceof one of the kings then Demetrius and later Antigonus werepreferable to others and especially preferable to Cassander and

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

26

Lysimachus But if Antigonus seemed weak as he must have afterthe death of Demetrius and if his future did not look promising itmight be prudent to avoid any support for him especially if at thesame time it also seemed possible to gain real and not merely nominalfreedom for Athens The public pressure was certainly there and itmight be better to work with it and perhaps exert some influence onit than to oppose it The fact that Lysimachus was behind much of thepublic agitation was no doubt worrisome to him We simply do notknow the details of Athenian politics at this time

These events can also be viewed through the eyes of theseminomadic Gauls to the north of Macedonia There had beenfrequent dealings between Macedonians and Gauls over the yearsand it had been the function of the Macedonian kings to keep theGauls out of Macedonia and hence out of Greece This they didthrough constant border skirmishes and minor warfare as well asoccasionally marrying the daughter of a chief or other diplomaticactivity From the time of Philip II if not earlier the less organizedGauls had to deal with a strong Macedonian king But now thereseemed to be some doubt as to who held power in Macedonia Itwas a perfect opportunity and it was not lost

Probably in the summer of 280 three distinct groups of Gaulsinvaded Macedonia and they would plunder the country regularlyfor the next several years Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed in battleat least partly because he lacked resources after giving some toPyrrhus for his expedition into Italy For the next three years therewas a succession of kings or power centers in Macedonia most ofwhom did not last very long One Antipater Etesias was so-calledbecause he managed to be king for only forty-five days the periodof the etesian winds Another Sosthenes did manage to maintainsome control for nearly two years but refused to take the title ofking There was a Ptolemy probably the eldest son of Arsinoeumland Lysimachus but he was not maintained in power long either(Justin 244ndash8)

Arsinoeuml had escaped to Cassandreia after the death of Lysimachusin 281 and she ruled the city for several years She was persuadedby her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus to marry him on the conditionthat her children would be spared which she did and they werenot The eldest Ptolemy escaped but the two younger ones weremurdered With that Arsinoeuml left Cassandreia and joined her fullbrother Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria and she eventuallymarried him Philadelphus had become king in his own name in

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

27

283 on the death of Ptolemy I Soter Shortly thereafter Cassandreiacame under the control of a tyrant named Apollodorus probablywith the help of a Spartan exile named Cleonymus23

Meanwhile Antigonus was not idle No doubt the troubledconditions in Greece demanded much of his attention but heeventually found the opportunity to engage a large force of Gaulsnear Lysimacheia probably in the summer of 277 Although thedetails are confused he managed to lure them into a trap with thepromise of plunder He displayed all manner of royal munificenceto them including an impressive fleet of warships and a largecontingent of elephants implying that they might possess some orall of this With more attention to profit than caution the Gauls fellinto an ambush A large force of Gauls was virtually annihilated andAntigonus was seen as something of a hero throughout GreeceThe philosopher Menedemos of Eretria made the motion for thedecree to honor Antigonus as savior of the Greeks (DL 2136)

Although Antigonus was the sole victor in this battle Athenianships also saw service against the Gauls24 This was a common Greekundertaking and clearly Antigonus and Athens (and no doubt others)were working for the same goal Athens of course still had a navyand it could be based nowhere but at the Piraeus which was underthe control of Antigonus It is probably to this time that a decree(IG II2 677) in honor of Heracleitus should be dated The stone isbroken at the top so no archon name survives Heracleitus is honoredfor his actions ldquoagainst the barbarians on behalf of Greek safetyrdquo(line 6) and for his ldquofriendship and benefaction toward KingAntigonus and the boule and demos of Athensrdquo Heracleitus son ofAsclepiades was an Athenian citizen of the deme Athmonon whomaintained a long association with Antigonus and ultimately wasappointed garrison commander at the Piraeus25

Antigonus was now in a position to make gains in MacedoniaHe brought the city of Cassandreia under siege and took it by yetanother trick this time with the help of an archpirate namedAmeinias26 Ameinias was to pretend to betray Antigonus enter thecity and once in open the gates to Antigonus (the same ruse hardlyoriginal had been used on Antigonus by the Athenians twicemdashonce successfully) It is worth noting that the activity of Antigonusin Macedonia at this time was conducted largely with mercenariesincluding Gallic mercenaries against other Gauls and with peoplecalled ldquopiratesrdquo His more seasoned mercenaries and veteran troopswere no doubt on duty in the Greek garrisons

ANARCHY AND RECOVERY

28

Antigonus had never recognized the expulsion of Demetrius fromMacedonia and had called himself ldquoKing of Macedoniardquo since thedeath of Demetrius in 283 Now in 276 he seemed secure in theactual control of Macedonia Lysimachus was dead and his kingdomdismembered The Gauls had been beaten back An understandinghad been reached with the house of Seleucus and there would beno challenge from that quarter That understanding may haveincluded the arrangements for the marriage of Antigonus to hisniece Phila daughter of his sister Stratonike and Seleucus Thewedding probably took place in 276 or 275 to judge by the age atlater times of their son Demetrius II It was about time Antigonuswas already well over forty years of age (his bride was probablyabout eighteen)27 It might be a good time to reflect on the propermeans of governing Macedonia There was however no time forthat There was at least one more threat Pyrrhus was about toreturn from Italy

29

4

THE STRUGGLE WITHPYRRHUS

Pyrrhus returned from Italy in 274 BC with a grudge to settle againstAntigonus who had refused to send help to Pyrrhus while he wasin Italy and Sicily and whose pleasure at the removal of Pyrrhusfrom Macedonia was probably not well concealed Pyrrhus wasalso in the mood for success after all his adventure in Italy hadultimately been unsuccessful He still controlled Epirus that wasnot in doubt He could not raise very many forces from that sourcealone however and added a large contingent of Gallic mercenariesto his invasion force of Macedonia

This was to be a mere plundering expedition according to Plutarch(Pyrr 263ndash4) but events turned out otherwise and Pyrrhus couldalways take advantage of opportunities Antigonus was defeated inbattle at least once and perhaps more than once He tacitly concededcontrol of western and central Macedonia to Pyrrhus and occupiedonly the coastal area Pyrrhus would soon abandon his gains inMacedonia for new adventures in the Peloponnese but his successin Macedonia is an indication of his personal popularity andreputation as well as the fact that Antigonus had not been able tosolidify his control of Macedonia There were many defections fromhis troops largely Gallic mercenaries and perhaps much of thepopulation of Macedonia was of uncertain loyalty

To be a Macedonian citizen residing in Macedonia in the earlythird century BC must have been a very difficult thing indeed Theolder men remembered the time when Cassander was king andalthough he may not have been the best or the most popular kingin Macedonian history at least one knew who the king was andexpected him to remain in that position with no serious challengesEven the reign of Demetrius must have looked like a time of stabilitycompared to what followed Demetrius was guilty only of neglectof citizens at least Macedonia did not suffer invasions under his

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

30

rule The subsequent division of the kingdom between Lysimachusand Pyrrhus would take some time to get used to but there was notime Pyrrhus was soon expelled and there was no time forLysimachus to seem a normal and natural part of the landscapebefore he too was no longer in the picture And then came asuccession of kings invasion by Gauls and general anarchy TheMacedonians now had another king Antigonus the son of Demetriusbut how long would he last It had been ten years since anyonecould feel certain about anything

So when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia he had friends from hisprevious occupation of the country and a very good track recordHe was at least as well known in Macedonia as Antigonus and inspite of all his other adventures he had managed consistently to beking of Epirus for several decades a record Antigonus Gonatas didnot have

Even in relatively absolutist monarchies popular sentiment stillplays an important role Pyrrhus made a serious mistake in allowinghis Gallic mercenaries to plunder the royal tombs at Aegae and gounpunished28 It is true that Antigonus never conceded anythinghe was still king of Macedonia and Pyrrhus was a temporaryinterloper It is probably also true that Antigonus did his best tostir up resentment against Pyrrhus He too had many friends andconnections in Macedonia In any case after the destruction andlooting of royal tombs Pyrrhus became very unpopular and hiscontrol of part of Macedonia was tenuous at best At that point hereceived a request from Cleonymus an exiled Spartan king tolead an army against Sparta in the interest of Cleonymus A newadventure was very appealing under the circumstances and it wasprobably much more than an adventure It is clear enough thatAntigonus had considerable strength in the Peloponnese Indeedthe announced reason for the expedition of Pyrrhus to thePeloponnese to ldquoset free the cities which were subject toAntigonusrdquo must have had some basis in fact even if exaggerated(Plut Pyrr 2610)

Pyrrhus led a large invasion force of 25000 infantry and 2000cavalry against Sparta which was weakly defended29 King Areuswas in Crete with a large part of the Spartan military force andPyrrhus was no doubt aware of that Antigonus was aware of ittoo and took steps to save the situation With the help of thewomen Sparta held out against Pyrrhus for one night and on thefollowing day a relieving force arrived from Corinth commanded

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

31

by Antigonusrsquo old friend the archpirate Ameinias On the followingday King Areus returned from Crete and Pyrrhus was forced towithdraw His retreat was subject to strong harassment by KingAreus during which Pyrrhusrsquo son Ptolemy was killed This Ptolemyhad been left in charge of Epirus while Pyrrhus was in Italy eventhough he was only about fifteen years old and was theheirapparent of Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus then withdrew to Argos where he had been summonedto aid one of two warring factions in the city The other factionhad invited Antigonus to come to the city He arrived beforePyrrhus and seized the high ground The resulting battle at Argoswas characterized by all the bad things common to warfaremiscommunication plans not well made going awry darknessconfusion and treachery Pyrrhus had managed to lead part ofhis forces into the city at night but not well A night of confusionand panic was followed by hand to hand fighting in the narrowcity streets at daybreak While Pyrrhus was trying unsuccessfullyto withdraw from the city he was killed by a blow to the headfrom a roof tile thrown by an old woman who thought her soldierson was in danger from Pyrrhus The blow may not have beenfatal but the severing of his head by one of Antigonusrsquo soldierswas Halkyoneus the illegitimate son of Antigonus presentedthe head to his father who was not at all happy to receive itAntigonus struck his son and called him a barbarian he wasreportedly moved to tears and reflected on the mutability offortune The remains of Pyrrhus were given to his son Helenusfor burial and Halkyoneus was later praised by Antigonus for hishumane treatment of Helenus and other supporters of PyrrhusPyrrhus received a royal burial and his surviving son Helenuswas sent back to Epirus where he reigned without interferencefrom Antigonus

Antigonus had considered Pyrrhus a worthy adversary a manof his own rank and status whose military ability earned himgrudging respect He likened Pyrrhus to a good dice player whomakes many good throws but doesnrsquot know what to do withthem (Plut Pyrr 262) On another occasion when asked whoin his opinion was the greatest general he said ldquoPyrrhus if helives to be oldrdquo (Pyrr 82) Pyrrhus was not yet fifty years oldwhen he died

With the death of Pyrrhus in 272 Antigonus was secure as Kingof Macedonia But he was potentially much more than that Indeed

THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS

32

he had already built a considerable power base in Greece whichhad sustained him and made him a force to be reckoned with evenwhen he had no power in Macedonia Macedonian kings had existedprior to Philip II but they did not matter very much Some kind ofdomination or control of Greece was necessary

33

5

THE GREEK HEGEMONY

Even if he had wanted to Antigonus could not turn back the clockand rule a small Macedonian kingdom that was self sufficient andsomewhat isolated from the rest of the world Indeed even in thoseapparently simpler days Macedonia was always subject to theinterference of outside powersmdashPersia or Athens or other Greekadventurersmdashnot to mention incursions of barbarians from the northWith most of the civilized world ruled by large empires founded byMacedonians and deeply imbued with Greek culture Macedoniaand Greece must either be on an equal footing with the other empiresor absorbed by one of them

Antigonus inherited a system of garrisons and personalconnections in Greece from Demetrius His bitter experience in thedecade of chaos after the death of Demetrius taught him to refineand modify that system The end result was a rather coherent systemof maintaining a Greek hegemony with minimum use of resourcesThe Antigonid presence in Greece was constant and pervasive noone living in Greece had to travel very far to find someone whoreported to Antigonus A glance at the map reveals that Antigonushad at least the potential to control entry and exit into the Greekmainland For all or most of his long forty-year reign garrisonswere in place at Corinth Troezen Epidaurus Megara SalamisEleusis Piraeus Sunium Rhamnous Chalcis and Eretria Theseconnected very well with his major capital at Demetrias in Thessalya large fortified city totally under his control which could easilyhouse 20000 to 25000 troops In addition Antigonus maintainedimportant political connections with local politicians in all of thesecities as well as with Athens Argos Megalopolis Elis the AetolianLeague and to some degree the Achaean League as well

Corinth was garrisoned in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes at

GREEK HEGEMONY

35

which time he also attempted to revive the Hellenic Leagueestablished by Philip II in 338 (DS 20103) The league functionedonly briefly under Demetrius and there is no indication thatAntigonus ever sought to revive it In fact it probably suited hispurposes better that the league not exist For a long time the garrisonat Corinth was commanded by Craterus the half-brother of AntigonusBecause of his personal connection with Demetrius and Antigonushis role was much greater than that of a mere commander of troopsIt was his responsibility to act as liaison between Antigonus and thepolitical groups and individuals within the city of Corinth30 Notmuch is known about the government of Corinth but here aselsewhere the practice of Antigonus seems to have been to allowthe maximum degree of internal autonomy with forms of governmentunchanged from tradition so long as the individuals exercisingpolitical power were friendlymdashor at least not hostilemdashto AntigonusAlso based at Corinth for many years was the archpirate Ameiniaswho is known to have led a force to Sparta in 272 from Corinth(Plut Pyrr 296) Since the date of death of Craterus is unknown itis even possible that Ameinias was in a significant position ofcommand at Corinth after the death of Craterus Craterus is lastmentioned in the sources when he led an unsuccessful rescue forceto Elis c 271 to support a tyrant who was a friend of Antigonus31

Craterusrsquo son Alexander also held the position as commander atCorinth c 252 BC when he revolted from Antigonus and declaredhimself an independent king Alexander was joined in his rebellionby the garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria which has led some scholarsto suggest that Alexander was in fact in charge of all three garrisons32

It is much more likely that he simply had partners in crime thathere was a conspiracy of three garrison commanders to rebel fromAntigonus Alexander was simply the most powerful of the three Itis worth noting that none of the garrison commanders seemed tohave any specific title or clearly defined duties Their influence andtheir duties depended entirely upon their relationship with Antigonusand other personal connections Craterus for example was thehalf-brother of the king and the relationship between the two waspersonally very close This was known to all (Plut Mor 219b)Craterus was almost a joint king with Antigonus and his authoritywent far beyond commanding troops at Corinth He seems to havehad full authority to arrange ransom of prisoners (PHerc 1418discussed earlier in Chapter 2) and busied himself with making acollection of Athenian decrees His son Alexander on the other

GREEK HEGEMONY

36

hand no doubt had his position because he was a blood relative ofthe king but the personal affection was lacking Ameinias the formerpirate who held some significant position at Corinth almost madeup for his lack of status by his close personal relationship withAntigonus Alexander son of Craterus died about five years laterand Antigonus recovered control of Corinth by promising the widowNicaea a marriage to his son Demetrius She consented and handedover the garrison but the marriage did not take place33 No more isheard of her For the next few years there seem to be three simultaneouscommanders at Corinth This is misleading The philosopher Persaiosa man named Archelaus and another named Theophrastus are allreferred to in terms that suggest they are in charge of something Whatis most likely is that Persaios was the major commander the one withmost influence with Antigonus and the best political connections withinthe city Archelaus and Theophrastus were generally subordinate tohim and had functions that were more military than civil34

Antigonus lost Corinth to Aratus of Sicyon in 243 BC and it wasnot recovered during his lifetime The garrison was taken by forceand the city joined the Achaean League headed by Aratus whohad procured some inside help from disaffected mercenaries withinthe garrison It is not surprising that most of the troops in the garrisonwere mercenaries of diverse origin and the turnover of personnelwas probably great Aratus had befriended four brothers who arecalled ldquoSyrianrdquo with generous gifts of cash he procured the necessaryinformation from them One can wonder about the source of themoney Aratus had made several trips to Ptolemy in Egypt andPtolemy had long been a good source of funds for anyone opposedto Antigonus Aratus hired 400 mercenaries and with a sudden nightattack overwhelmed the garrison which resisted strenuously withgreat loss of life (Plut Aral 24) Even Polybius a source generallyhostile to Antigonus did not approve of a sneak attack in peacetimeand considered the event shameful (Polyb 2509) The news wasno doubt very disconcerting to Antigonus if for no other reasonthan that he had lost something which he had held for so long Asa practical matter however it seems not to have affected his positionin Greece because of the strength of the rest of the system

The city of Troezen not far from Corinth would have been alikely place for the installation of an Antigonid garrison There is infact evidence for a garrison at some few points in time In or about275 BC a garrison of Antigonus commanded by a man namedEudamidas was attacked and expelled by the Spartan exile

GREEK HEGEMONY

37

Cleonymus (Polyaen 2291) There is an inscription which suggestsa garrison at some other date which is probably at a later period oftime35 One cannot be certain if the garrison expelled by Cleonymuswas reinstalled but when one looks at the entire plan and situationof Antigonus in Greece it would have been a high priority Indeedduring the Chremonidean War Troezen is not among the list ofthose allied with Athens Troezen and Athens had for long beenallies and friends and one must wonder why Troezen did not joinher traditional ally in the struggle against Antigonus it may be becauseit was impossible due to the presence of an Antigonid garrison In243 BC shortly after the capture of Corinth by Aratus Troezen wasone of three cities which were brought into the Achaean League byAratus of Sicyon (Plut Aral 243 Paus 285 Polyb 2434)

Epidaurus is another of those cities brought into the AchaeanLeague at that time There is no other firm evidence for a garrison atEpidaurus however the location is appropriate if Antigonus hadplanned to control entry into the nearby Saronic Gulf During theChremonidean War the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus was notable to accomplish anything in the western end of the gulf and wasforced to utilize a base camp near Sunium in Attica Antigonus mayhave maintained garrisons not only at Troezen and Epidaurus butalso on the island of Hydra which guards the entrance to the gulfThe only possible evidence for this is an anecdote in Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus (Plut Aral 12) indicating that Aratus was blown off courseon the way to Egypt and landed at an island called ldquoAdriardquo whichhad an Antigonid garrison The text is apparently corrupt and Hydrais one of the possibilities It is the possibility which makes the beststrategic sense

Megara is the other of the three cities that joined the AchaeanLeague in 243 and it seems to have held an Antigonid garrison formost of the earlier time It was held by Demetrius (Syll3 331 andPlut Dem 39) and contained an Antigonid garrison mostly Gaulsduring the Chremonidean War (Polyaen 463 Trogus Prol 26)and at some uncertain date around the middle of the third centuryMegara contained a garrison commanded by a man named Lycinusan exile from one of the Greek cities of south Italy (Stobaeus PeriXenes 408)

One of the two strongest garrisons ringing the Saronic Gulf (theother was Corinth) was the Antigonid garrison at the Piraeus Astrong garrison was established by Demetrius in 295 after theexpulsion of the tyrant Lachares and Antigonid control of the Piraeus

GREEK HEGEMONY

38

was probably continuous from that point until its loss to Athens in229 BC during the reign of Antigonus Doson There is evidence forthe existence of the garrison datable to 286 277 265 252 and 239We may have an almost complete list of garrison commanders (thecommander(s) for the first ten years prior to Heracleides in 286 arenot known) Heracleides Hierocles Heracleitus and Diogenes36

The interaction between at least some members of the garrisonand local citizens was sometimes rather close and was probablyexpected to be The first two garrison commanders were mercenariesand foreigners Heracleides seems to have been not well liked andnot much is known about him Hierocles who commanded thegarrison sometime before 265 was a close personal friend of thephilosopher Menedemos and was stationed at the garrison for manyyears as a subordinate to Heracleides before becoming commanderin his own name It was in that earlier time that the Atheniansthought they knew him well enough to bribe him to betray thegarrison to a group of Athenians He pretended to go along with itbut informed his superior of the plot and an ambush was set Thethird commander of the Piraeus garrison was an Athenian citizen bythe name of Heracleitus he is known to have been in command c252 BC at the time of the revolt of Alexander son of Craterus atCorinth The association of the Athenian Heracleitus with Antigonuswent back many years he was honored by the Athenians for hisinvolvement in the battle of Lysimacheia at which Antigonus defeateda large group of Gauls (IG II2 677)

The Piraeus garrison was commanded by one Diogenes in 239BC (Plut Aral 341) but it is not certain how long he had been inthat position or whether he had been appointed by Antigonus orhis son and successor Demetrius II He commanded the garrison for10 years until in 229 he was induced to turn the garrison over tothe Athenians for which he was rewarded with Athenian citizenship

For the other forts in Attica (Eleusis Salamis Sunium Rhamnousamong others) we have no certain evidence of continuous Antigonidgarrisons To the extent that the forts were under Athenian controlthe local commander may nevertheless have had to work closelywith the commander of the Piraeus their local autonomy wasambiguous at best Some of the outlying forts if under control of anAntigonid garrison may have reported to the commander of thePiraeus We do have evidence for garrison commanders at theseforts there are some honorary decrees reporting that an individualwas ldquoappointed by the kingrdquo But that designation seems to apply to

GREEK HEGEMONY

39

those years just after the Chremonidean War when Antigonusappointed most Athenian officials Some of the garrison commandersare both appointed by the king and elected by the people as thoughthe one process is a ratification of the other37 Strategic considerationsrather than solid evidence compel one to suppose that most of thegarrisons were held by Antigonus or controlled by him in someway throughout most of his reign Events took the turn they didduring the Chremonidean War because the garrisons were controlledby Antigonus at that time his control and influence in Attica waseven greater in the period after the Chremonidean War

The Antigonid garrisons at Chalcis and Eretria are largely assumedDemetrius had ships prepared for his invasion of Asia in 287 in theharbor at Chalcis (Plut Dem 43) One assumes that if he werebuilding warships and maintaining them in the harbor that he exertedsome influence or control in the city There was probably a garrisonin Chalcis and there is no known time before 252 when it wouldhave been lost If it was it was not for long because by the time ofthe Chremonidean War the region was quite secure A garrison atChalcis would explain that security Chalcis rebelled againstAntigonus along with Alexander the son of Craterus in 252 It waspresumably recovered along with Corinth in 247 because it containeda Macedonian garrison later until the time when the RomanFlamininus ordered the evacuation of the garrisons in 196 BC

Similar assumptions must be made about Eretria It was strategicallyless essential but there is some evidence for a garrison at an earlydate The philosopher Menedemos a citizen of Eretria was a closefriend of Antigonus The brief biography of Menedemos by DiogenesLaertius relates the exile of Menedemos because of his closefriendship with Antigonus and that Menedemos was unhappy atthe capture of Eretria and his request to Antigonus to grant the cityfreedom All of this must take place sometime prior to the death ofMenedemos c 265 BC (Diogenes Laertius 2127 and 2142) Althoughthese references are confusing it is clear that Antigonus exertedsome sort of influence and very likely had a garrison in the city ofEretria prior to 265 There was no opportunity to lose the garrisonuntil c 252 when that garrison may have rebelled along withAlexander the son of Craterus at Corinth If it was lost then it waslater recovered there is an Antigonid garrison recorded in aninscription dated to 236 BC (SEG XXV 155) honoring the commanderDicaiarchus

These garrisons were strategically placed The garrison at Corinth

GREEK HEGEMONY

40

isolated all states in the Peloponnesus from the remainder of GreeceThe garrisons at Megara and at Chalcis isolated Attica from centralGreece It was thus difficult for Greek states to combine militarilyagainst Antigonus There was little direct control of states in thePeloponnesus but this was not necessary in as much as any actionoriginating in the Peloponnesus could be blocked at Corinth Thegarrisons also served to control major naval landing places in southernGreece The occupation of Corinth made possible some control ofnaval activity in both the Corinthian and the Saronic Gulfs Thegarrison at the Piraeus occupied another important commercial harborand added to the control of the Saronic Gulf The garrisons at Suniumand Troezen could watch the entrance to the Saronic Gulf SuniumRhamnous and Chalcis guarded the approach and passage of theEurippus channel between Euboea and the Greek mainland

The strongest garrison of all of course was Demetrias in Thessalythe fortress city founded by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 294 (PlutDem 534 Strabo 9515) This large and well-fortified city providedsecure communication between southern Greece and Macedoniaproper38 It was the door to Macedonia while the other garrisons inGreece were the outer fences

Garrisons alone might not be enough to secure the interests ofAntigonus in Greece and in some cases they were not evennecessary The connections of Antigonus with philosophical schoolsin Athens and with other Athenians have already been notedEven the Chremonidean War (see chapter 6) was only a briefhiatus in the otherwise friendly relations of Antigonus with AthensAfter the successful conclusion of the war he found it prudent toinstall a garrison on the Museum Hill and to take over the operationof the city government to the extent of naming the major officials(Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44 Paus 366) But that only lasted forabout five years He removed the garrison from the Museum Hillc 255 BC because it was no longer necessary Athens wouldconduct itself in ways corresponding to his interests without thepresence of an expensive garrison This is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the fact that when Alexander son of Craterusrebelled with his garrison at Corinth and took Chalcis and Eretriawith him Athens was invited to join and refused to do so IndeedAlexander apparently attempted to apply force to bring Athens tohis side and with the aid of Aristomachus of Argos another friendof Antigonus Athens resisted any attempt to join Alexander in hisrebellion against Antigonus (IG II2 774 a decree honoring

GREEK HEGEMONY

41

Aristomachus) Athens also refused to join Aratus of Sicyon in hisopposition to Antigonus in the years after 243 BC (Plut Aral 24)There are several inscriptions indicating that Athens rather regularlywould make public sacrifices for the welfare of the King ofMacedonia and his queen Athens remained loyal to Antigonusand so preserved its internal autonomy39

Argos maintained close and friendly relations with Antigonusthroughout his long reign and for some time afterwards At sometime well before 272 BC Aristippus had made himself tyrant inArgos He was challenged in 272 by Aristeas who sought the aidof Pyrrhus This event brought Pyrrhus to the Peloponnesus andbrought Antigonus directly to Argos to aid his friend Aristippusresulting in the death of Pyrrhus (Plut Pyrr 30) We hear no moreof Aristippus but he was succeeded by his son Aristomachus whowas in power in Argos by 255 BC (IG II2 774) He was killed byhis slaves in 242 but immediately followed as tyrant by his sonAristippus who was in turn killed in battle but succeeded byanother relative probably a brother named Aristomachus Hemaintained the family tyranny until after 229 BC (Plut Arat 25ndash29) This was a useful connection for Antigonus Except for therescue mission in 272 it required no deployment of troops yetresulted in control of the Argolid and a reliable check to any otherhostile activity in the Peloponnesus Argos was a traditional enemyof Sparta and Sparta was probably the only possible source ofhostility in the Peloponnesus There is no record of any overtactivity on the part of Aristomachus of Argos during theChremonidean War however the existence of a friendly Argos atthat particular geographic location complicated the plans of thePtolemaic fleet and also made the land march of King Areus ofSparta a little more difficult He could count on no help along theway and some possible harassment Antigonus did not seem toneed much more than this in that episode When help was neededit was forthcoming When Alexander son of Craterus rebelled fromhis position at Corinth Aristomachus of Argos took action againsthim (I G II2 774) the details are not preserved on the brokenstone but it is clear that there was some military engagement andthat Aristomachus went so far as to furnish Athens with moneyfrom his own resources to enable Athens to preserve itsindependence Argos was important enough for Antigonus to ensurehis personal involvement when necessary In addition to the rescuemission in 272 Antigonus seems to have been involved in a series

GREEK HEGEMONY

42

of assassination attempts against Aratus of Sicyonmdashthis in returnfor attempts by Aratus on the life of Aristippus (Plut Arat 261)

The assumption that Antigonus had friendly relations with the cityof Megalopolis is largely inferential The fact that Megalopolis wasruled by a tyrant for much of the third century does not necessarilyconnect the city with Antigonus in any way There is no firm evidencethat Antigonus supported tyrants as a matter of preference rather hesupported governments that were friendly to him whatever theirform This particular tyranny was constantly at odds with Sparta andwas invaded by Sparta on several occasions Sparta was traditionallyhostile to Antigonus It is a weak argument to assume that the enemyof onersquos enemy must be a friend but one can add to this the fact thatthe historian Polybius was a citizen of Megalopolis whose familywas of the opposing political faction to the tyranny of AristodemusPolybius is perhaps the source most hostile to Antigonus and thesource for the allegation that Antigonus supported tyrants (Polyb1022) Megalopolis was in any case not worse than neutral towardAntigonus there is no record of any difficulties whatsoever betweenAntigonus or any of his friendly allies and Megalopolis

There is only a brief mention in our sources of the situation atElis and it would seem that Antigonus had an ally in that city in theperson of a tyrant named Aristotimus At some time shortly after272 Aristotimus was faced with an uprising and Craterus rushed tohis aid from Corinth He arrived too late however and Aristotimuswas dead when he arrived The tyranny was ended Craterus tookno action to reinstall a tyranny but merely left apparently on friendlyterms with the inhabitants (Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251Aand 253A) This seems to be an example of a situation whereAntigonus took an opportunity to extend his influence It was notpart of a master plan Elis was not essential to his purposes But itwould be desirable to have a friend in power in Elis if that wereconveniently arranged So long as the Isthmus the easternPeloponnesus and Attica were secure the western Peloponnesuswas a desirable addition but not essential

Antigonus made use of tyrants like garrisons when it seemednecessary appropriate and possible Geography and populationwere more important to him than form of government Specificinformation is available for only very few cities primarily thoseruled by tyrants because the tyrannies later became very unpopularand later writers had something to say about them There may wellhave been many other cities in which Antigonus exercised

GREEK HEGEMONY

43

considerable influence which caused no notice to be made in latersources

Antigonus was able to work with a confederation of autonomouscities quite as easily as with tyrants if it suited his interests Thebest example of this is the Aetolian League Throughout the longreign of Antigonus there is no record of any hostility on the partof Aetolia and there were certainly opportunities The friendshipbetween Antigonus and the Aetolians went back at least to 280BC when the Aetolians are referred to by Justin (241) as allies ofAntigonus in the struggle with Ptolemy Ceraunus There was noopen alliance between the two nothing that would have requiredAetolia to offer aid to Antigonus against Pyrrhus for example Butthere does seem to have been a tacit agreement not to get in eachotherrsquos way During the Chremonidean War the Aetolian Leaguewas explicitly neutral and sought to secure the safety of religiousmeeting places40 This neutrality is of considerable importanceHad the Aetolians joined the opposition to Antigonus in theChremonidean War the strategic situation the resources on eachside and the outcome very likely would be much different Polybiusmakes several references to a formal agreement between theAetolians and Antigonus to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague although nothing seems to have come of it41 If true itwould be the first formal agreement between the two but it isnoteworthy that the long relationship between the two powersmade such a treaty at least believable The inference of gooddiplomatic relationships with the Aetolian League is finallyconfirmed by the placement of Antigonid garrisons in GreeceThey were not designed to ward off any threat from the directionof Aetolia

The relationship of Antigonus with the newer Achaean Leaguewas less successful Polybius42 recounts that many of the cities whicheventually became the Achaean League had been garrisoned byAntigonus and had tyrants imposed on them by him No details areavailable and so we cannot know if garrisons and tyrants wereshort-term or longer in which cities and if a friendly relationshipwas developed with the removal of tyrants In at least one citySicyon we know that Antigonus carefully cultivated friendship withCleinias an important politician in Sicyon and later with his sonAratus who would become the most influential official of theAchaean League (Plut Arat 2 4 13 passim) Aratus ultimatelybecame quite hostile to Antigonus and the situation never improved

GREEK HEGEMONY

44

Plutarchrsquos statement that Antigonus was ldquojealousrdquo because Sicyonhad ldquoregained its freedomrdquo under Aratus (Plut Arat 93) probablymerely refers to Antigonusrsquo frustration at being unable to influenceAratus and suggests that Antigonus had previously enjoyed amicablerelations with the city There was a royal horse farm near the city(Plut Arat 6) which implies at least moderately friendly relationsit would have been foolish to have such an installation in unfriendlyterritory The horse farm may not have outlasted the enmity ofAratus

Over the years Antigonus had established considerable controland influence in Greece based on a strategically located show offorce and opportunistic ties of friendship and alliance His networkof friends and agents had two objectives One was to make it difficultfor any non-Greek power (Ptolemy or less likely Seleucus) tointervene in Greek affairs without automatically encounteringresistance and without his knowledge Also any combination offorces within Greece directed against him would be unable to do soin secrecy and would encounter logistical difficulties in maintainingcommunication and effecting movement The Chremonidean Warwas the test of the system and the system worked

45

6

THECHREMONIDEAN

WAR

The system of garrisons and allies established by Antigonus leftplenty of room for local maneuvering The Greek cities and leaguesby themselves could not directly threaten his position in Macedoniaor his position as a ldquogreat powerrdquo in the hellenistic world afterAlexander but they could cause him nearly constant annoyanceand require his frequent attention That was the price he paid forbeing king the price he especially had to pay for exercising ahegemony over Greece on the cheap The loose system requiredvery little in the way of manpower and did not require him toactually administer Greek cities This meant that someone else (localpoliticians) would manage things If their actions were inimical tohis interests he was in a position to intervene but he took no overtaction until or unless necessary

The only real threat to Antigonus was Ptolemy Philadelphus ofEgypt His power was at least as great greater depending on howone measured it Ptolemy was certainly wealthier and may havehad a larger fleet but he did not have a land army equal to AntigonusThe chief threat resided in the fact that Ptolemy was a Macedonianalbeit one who ruled Egypt He wanted and needed a connectionwith ldquohomerdquomdashMacedonia and Greecemdashfor sentimental as well aspractical reasons No man is an island not even Ptolemy with all hiswealth he needed a large cadre of GreekMacedonian ruling officialsas well as mercenaries to assist him in Egypt and they could bemaintained only with some of the comforts of home some sense offamiliarity This is at least a large part of the reason behind thedevelopment of the Museum and related institutions in AlexandriaTo maintain some influence and interest in Greek affairs was also anecessity It also suited his interests to keep Antigonus as weak anduninfluential as possible No one had quite forgotten that Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

46

was the son of the Demetrius who twenty years earlier had triedand almost succeeded in conquering all of Asia and that he was thegrandson of the Antigonus who a little over thirty years earlier hadalmost conquered all of Alexanderrsquos empire

Hostility between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Antigonids ofMacedonia was long-standing and remained a feature of Hellenisticgeopolitics Hostility between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids ofAsia was not much less and indeed the so-called ldquoSecond SyrianWarrdquo between these two is nearly contemporaneous with theChremonidean War The Antigonids and Seleucids maintainedfriendly or at least neutral relations especially in the preceding twodecades but there is no evidence for a formal alliance in either theChremonidean War or the Second Syrian War nor for any directinvolvement of one in support of the other

Ptolemy controlled parts of Syria and Asia Minor in contentionwith the Seleucids He also exercised some control or hegemonyover many of the Aegean islands in contention with Antigonuswho does not seem to have placed a high priority on any hegemonyor influence in the islands beyond whatever opportunity offeredPtolemy attempted to exert influence on the cities of mainlandGreece without much success prior to the Chremonidean Warbecause most of the Greek cities were under a rather tight hegemonyof Antigonus Gonatas

So it was due to continuous Ptolemaic agitation that in the springof 264 BC (the archonship of Peithidemos Athenian archon year2654)43 an alliance was formed between Ptolemy Athens Spartathe Elians Achaeans Tegeans Mantineans Orchomenians(Arcadian) Phialians Kaphueans and ldquosomerdquo Cretans (IG II2 687)against Antigonus Gonatas The decree recording the alliance anddeclaration of war was moved by the Athenian Chremonides (whospent most of his adult life as a mercenary in the service of Ptolemy)hence the name of the war The list of allies is revealing Many wereSpartan dependencies all were militarily insignificant nonestrategically located (except perhaps Athens if she had controlledher port and border forts which she did not) More important is thelong list of Greek entities which were not among the allies (such asCorinth Argos Troezen Megara Thebes Megalopolis and Sicyon)either because they were garrisoned by Antigonus or because theywere not sufficiently hostile to him

The declaration of war offers no specific grievances by any partybut merely states in very general terms that Antigonus is unjust and

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

47

a breaker of treaties One can wonder which treaty with whomand what conditions were violated but in fact we have no record ofany treaty between Antigonus and any of the parties to this warThere are references to ongoing hostilities during the previous twoyears in the archonships of Menekles and Nikias44 Nor can weoverlook the possible influence of personal relationships of coursePtolemy and Antigonus were well acquainted and were in fact relatedby marriage but Chremonides may have been well acquainted withAntigonus as well in that both had been long-time students of Zenoalthough probably not at the same time45 Unfortunately and perhapscuriously we have no information of any action by Chremonidesduring the ensuing war which bears his name

The strategy of the alliance is difficult to recover one can onlymake inferences from what actually happened Ptolemy sent a fleetunder the command of Patroclus to the waters off Athens We donot know the size or composition of the fleet A base camp was setup on a small island opposite cape Sunium (Paus 111 and 364Strabo 921) it is a most inhospitable place and can have beenchosen only because nothing else was possible There is evidencefor brief and small-scale Ptolemaic presence in various places inAttica about what one would expect for foraging parties46 It wouldseem that this was a fleet prepared for a naval battle not one designedto transport an army The land action was apparently to beundertaken by King Areus of Sparta who led an army toward theCorinthian isthmus either to engage the Antigonid garrison thereand remove it or to aid Athens in the expected siege by Antigonusor both On his first attempt he could not get past the garrison atCorinth and returned to Sparta (Paus 364) Meanwhile Antigonusdid bring Athens under siege and no relief was forthcoming fromeither Areus or Patroclus In the course of the siege Antigonid troopswere also active in Attica and along the coast Pausanias refers to anattack ldquowith an army and a fleetrdquo and ldquoravaging the countryside ofAthensrdquo (Paus 111)

In the autumn of that year (264) Antigonus was faced with arevolt of his mercenaries mostly Gauls in the garrison at MegaraThis was a convenient development for the allies and whetherPtolemaic agents or those of Athens Sparta or other allies instigatedthe revolt is open to speculation the Gauls were quite capable ofrevolting all by themselves In any case Antigonus was spreadthin He could not detach troops from Corinth to deal with therevolt he had to raise the siege of Athens and deal with it

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

48

personally He made a truce with the Athenians who optimisticallyplanted crops to be harvested the next spring The revolt of theGauls was suppressed perhaps with a little difficulty47 In thatsame autumn but more likely early in the following springAlexander of Epirus (son of Pyrrhus and current king of Epirus)invaded Macedonia but he was repulsed by an army nominally incommand of Demetrius II who could not have been more thanthirteen or fourteen years old (Justin 2629ndash12) The personalpresence of Antigonus was not required It is easy enough to suspectthat someone was trying very hard to distract Antigonus from thesiege of Athens

In the spring of 263 Antigonus resumed the siege of Athens anddestroyed the crops before they could be harvested MeanwhileAreus had marched his army back to the Isthmus and he was killedin the resulting battle The army returned to Sparta (Justin 262Trogus Prol 26 Polyaen 4620 Frontinus 342) Patroclus wasunable to accomplish anything further and withdrew What he wastrying to accomplish may be suggested by an isolated anecdote inAthenaeus (8334) where it is reported that Patroclus had sent a giftto Antigonus consisting of a basket of fish and figs It seemed aperplexing gift to those around him but Antigonus understood itsmeaning and laughed It was a tauntmdashthe wealthy ate fish the poorate figs to be wealthy (successful) he must control the sea Thiswas an attempt by Patroclus to goad him into a naval battle Antigonuswas not a gambler at this point he had little to gain and much tolose from a naval battle He wanted control of Greece He had justproved that he already had that he could lose it or weaken it by anunsuccessful naval battle A victory at sea at this point would bringhim nothing but prestige He was willing to forego prestige foractual power

One must wonder what the Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus wasdoing while all this was going on What could it have done

An ancient naval ship was a weapons system whose primaryfunction was to capture or sink other similar weapons systemsother ships Although the larger ships could mount catapults andreach other ships with their missiles naval ldquobombardmentrdquo of landinstallations was not effective usual or expected The propulsionsource for a fighting ship was human muscle a lot of it Rowerswere not usually trained combat soldiers and what is more theytook up almost all the available space on the ship There was roomfor only a small company of combat soldiers An invasion force of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

49

combat troops could be transported on escorted merchant shipsbut they were slow vulnerable expensive and required a securelanding place Ptolemy was not sending an invasion force to Greekwaters the land action was the responsibility of his allies on thescene Athens Sparta and the other Greeks would be counted onto supply the infantry manpower Ptolemy was sending naval forceswhich were designed to engage other naval forces those ofAntigonus Antigonus did not cooperate he generally kept his navyin port48 and in any case avoided engagement The Ptolemaic fleetunder Patroclus had little to do

This war was decided on land What could a naval battle haveaccomplished In a purely military sense nothing Not territory thewinner does not maintain possession of the battlefield Certainlynot ldquocontrol of the seardquo This is difficult enough in the modernperiod and something no ancient navy could seriously hope forThe ships were not built to withstand prolonged periods at seaespecially in heavy weather and were too cramped to carry any butminimal provisions The general practice was to beach the ships atnight while the crew went ashore The closest thing to ldquocontrol ofthe seardquo was the possession of a sufficient number of well-maintainedships and skilled crews to enable a fleet to put to sea quickly andmeet any threat in its vicinity The value of a strong fleet and thevalue of a naval victory was primarily psychological And theimportance of psychological victories (or defeats) should not beunderestimated The loser of a naval battle has lost expensive shipsand valuable (perhaps irreplaceable) manpower His remainingtroops friends and allies are demoralized arid full of despair Theyfight less effectively The winner has suffered fewer and morebearable economic losses and his remaining troops friends andallies are inspired to new and greater efforts They fight moreeffectively A naval victory can alter the course of the war This isequally true of a land battle of course but the effect is often greaterfor a naval battle because the economic and human losses are higherand there are fewer eyewitnesses and the magnitude of the victoryor defeat is easily exaggerated

Ptolemy was the disturber of the status quo in the ChremonideanWar His intention was to engage Antigonus in a naval battle whichif he were victorious would damage Antigonus militarily andespecially politically making the success of Ptolemyrsquos Greek allieson land much more likely If Ptolemy should lose (and consequentlylose the war) he would have lost some ships and men but the

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

50

political situation in Greece would remain as it was He had muchto gain little to lose

The intention of Antigonus was merely to keep what he hadAggressive moves to change the status quo could wait for a latertime if desired To engage Ptolemy in a naval battle could gain himnothing except prestige he could win the war on land in Greecewithout a naval battle and he did To engage in a naval battle andlose it could cost him the war on land He had much to lose andlittle to gain by a naval battle And so with the gift of a basket offish and figs Patroclus was trying probably not for the first time togoad him into staking all on a naval battle The laughter of Antigonusis understandable as the expressed smile of self-satisfaction he hada well-thought-out strategy and it was working even better than hehad hoped Patroclus had been reduced to cute tricks

Antigonus had spent much of his youth in Athens and waseducated there If he needed a precedent for his strategy it was thatof Pericles at the outset of the Peloponnesian War Athens weakerthan Sparta on land simply refused to engage the Spartans on landbut rather withdrew behind her walls and used her superior seapowerto damage the Spartans Sparta could not withstand Athens at seaThat Athens ultimately lost the war was not due to faulty strategy onPericlesrsquo part In just this way with greater ultimate success Antigonusengaged the forces of Ptolemy and his allies only where he wasstrongermdashon land ndash and avoided a high-risk naval encounterPtolemy in fact had a similar planmdashbut it didnrsquot work His intentionwas to force Antigonus to meet him on his chosen field of battlethe sea where he had a good chance of victory and to avoid anyencounter on land where Antigonus was stronger The chiefdifference and an important one is that Antigonus did have a navalforce capable of meeting Ptolemy but he chose not to use it onPtolemyrsquos terms On the other hand Ptolemy did not have anadequate land force with which to challenge Antigonus He had nooptions

One can marvel at the cynical way in which Ptolemy exploitedAthens and Sparta and the other Greeks he surely knew they wereno match for the Macedonian army The failure of his strategy costhim nothing but it was very costly to the Greeks It was a veryefficient cost-effective and cautious strategy one which minimizedthe possibility and costs of defeat It was perhaps too cautious tomake success likely success depended on the cooperation of hisadversary Antigonus

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

51

Ptolemyrsquos caution was certainly a matter of strategy and not apersonality defect It has been almost axiomatic in scholarly literature49

to assume that Ptolemy Philadelphus was nearly incompetent inmilitary matters and foreign affairs that his sisterwife Arsinoeuml IIwas the brains behind the throne most especially for this war whichwent badly because she had died and Ptolemy did not implementher plans correctly That Arsinoeuml was very clever and influential isnot to be doubted so were many other people including otherqueens That Philadelphus himself was interested in sensual pleasuresand drinking is also not to be doubted so were Philip II andDemetrius Poliorcetes whose military acumen is legendary PtolemyPhiladelphus did undertake bold action and had many successesduring his long reign before and after his marriage to Arsinoeuml50

perhaps some unknown advisors (even Arsinoeuml) are responsiblefor some of them but in any case the king was responsible foraccepting advice wisely or not and should get full credit or blamePtolemyrsquos low-risk strategy for the Chremonidean War may havebeen very sensible if his war aims were limited We donrsquot know thecauses of this war the evidence simply doesnrsquot exist Severalsuggestions have been made51 and they can be divided into twocategories preventive war against a perceived future threat fromAntigonus and opportunistic war seizing an opportunity to weakenAntigonus In either case there was no immediate danger to Ptolemyfrom Antigonus his war aims could have been limited He couldafford to follow a cautious strategy He could afford to lose the war

By the late summer of 263 (the beginning of the archonship ofAntipater Athenian archon year 2632) Athens capitulatedunconditionally It was no doubt necessary to take some actionagainst certain individuals Chremonides had no difficulty escapingto Ptolemy for whom he commanded a fleet some years later(Polyaen VI8) The seer antiquarian and historian Philochoruswas not so lucky we learn that he was executed by Antigonus atthe end of the war (Suidas sv Philochorus) It is likely enough thatthere were other executions Antigonus reinstalled a garrison onthe Museum Hill inside the city and announced that until furthernotice the internal government would be under his direction52 Thiswas no doubt accomplished in what had become his usual mannerpersonal connections and relationships He appointed individualshe thought he could trust as officials of the city There was no needto rearrange the government at all it was only necessary to assurethat the usual officials were people he could trust This followed

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

52

the pattern of Demetrius in earlier years (c 294ndash287) and there issome evidence for it in the appointment of garrison commanders(discussed in the previous chapter) In some cases election alsotook place either before or after a nomination by Antigonus Thesituation seems to have been very like the commendatio exercisedby Augustus It was not a constitutional matter at all but a matter ofpersonal authority (auctoritas) but not therefore less effective Atfirst this personal authority was reinforced by the presence of agarrison in the city but eventually even that would not be necessaryThe garrison was removed c 255 BC because it was no longerneeded53

Athens and Sparta and the other allies were pawns in the greatgame between Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus won theChremonidean Warmdashagainst Athens and the Greek allies Ptolemyhad not yet been engaged

The Chremonidean War was after all not simply a war betweenAntigonus and Athens it was also a war between Antigonus andPtolemy It was for this reason as well that it was necessary forAntigonus to maintain a tight grip on Athens even after the city hadbeen defeated He was still at war with Ptolemy He defeated thePtolemaic fleet under Patroclus in a great naval battle off the islandof Cos a short time later in a situation where neither side hadanything to gain or lose except prestige (and the ships and men ofcourse) The evidence for the Battle of Cos is even less than meagerAthenaeus (V209e) expended many words describing famous bigships and ended by telling his readers he would omit discussion ofthe ship of Antigonus in which he defeated Ptolemyrsquos generals offCos and later dedicated the ship to Apollo Diogenes Laertius in hisbiographical sketch of the philosopher Arcesilaus (DL439) reportsthat Arcesilaus didnrsquot flatter king Antigonus after the seafight offCos like other people did And Plutarch (Mor 545b) in an accountof ldquoFamous Sayings of Kingshelliprdquo recounts how Antigonus II in theseafight off Cos responded to one of his companions who worriedthat they were outnumbered by suggesting that his presence countedfor something Thus all we know is that there was a Battle of Cosbetween Antigonus and Ptolemy Antigonus was outnumbered buthe won and he dedicated his flagship to Apollo There is no way toestablish a date for the battle with any certainty but there is generalagreement that it falls somewhere between 262 and 256 BC54 Ithappened after the capitulation of Athens and the end of theChremonidean War on the Greek mainland and prior to a time of

THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR

53

peace in the Aegean recorded for the year 255 in a Delian inscription(IG XI 2 116) This time of peace is subject to much interpretationand is hardly conclusive evidence but it is the latest possible datein any case The battle could not have taken place prior to thecapitulation of Athens and would very likely have taken place assoon as practical thereafter surely within seven years I suggest thatAntigonus at an opportune time after affairs on the mainland ofGreece were securely in his control and he had nothing to losesought out the Ptolemaic fleet at a time and place of his choosingHe fought the naval battle at a time and place when he could affordto lose as he clearly could not afford to lose while the ChremonideanWar was still raging in Greece

The relative chronology of the few known events is clear enough ndash tension between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antigonus Gonatas

hostility in Athens toward Antigonusndash the declaration of war by all the (now open) allies against

Antigonusndash the nearly simultaneous arrival of a Ptolemaic fleet under Patroclus

in the Saronic Gulf the unsuccessful assault on Corinth by aSpartan army under Areus and Antigonid land and navalharassment of Attica

ndash the siege of Athens by Antigonusndash the distraction of Antigonus by a revolt of Gallic mercenaries at

Megara and an invasion of Macedonia by Alexander of Epirusndash the lifting of the siege of Athens under trucendash the resumption of the siege of Athens and another unsuccessful

assault on Corinth by Areus and his deathndash the capitulation of Athens andndash the withdrawal of Patroclus and the Ptolemaic fleet

There was a hiatus of a few years in overt hostilities betweenAntigonus and Ptolemy which flared anew when the Second SyrianWar broke out The primary antagonists in that conflict wereAntiochus II and Ptolemy II Philadelphus Antigonus long on friendlyterms with Antiochus was not formally involved in the war but sawan opportunity to permanently weaken Ptolemy The result was theBattle of Cos a memorable naval victory for Antigonus The Battleof Cos was the coda for the Chremonidean War

54

7

AN OLD MANrsquoSTROUBLES

The final decade and a half of the life of Antigonus Gonatas is tous nearly void of events and information He was about sixty-fiveyears old at the Battle of Cos c 255 and for the remaining fifteenyears of his life we know only that he endured the loss of his majorgarrison at Corinth to his nephew Alexander the son of Craterushe regained it a few years later by a trick he lost it again permanentlyto Aratus of Sicyon along with some other smaller garrisons and inthe meantime he fought a victorious naval battle against Ptolemyoff Andros We also know that his sister Stratonike wife of AntiochusII died and a festival was established at Delos in her honor

It was probably in 253 that Antigonus created the ldquoStratonikeiardquoat Delos in honor of his sister who had been a frequent visitor anddedicator to the shrines of Apollo and Artemis on the island Thisneed not have any political significance and another festival institutedat about the same time the ldquoAntigoneiardquo is problematic as well Itwas dedicated to Apollo Artemis and Leto and it may be celebratinghis recent victory at the naval Battle of Cos which was of recentmemory and known to all55 Its political significance however mayjust as easily be nothing more than a public demonstration of hispiety

Shortly thereafter in or about the year 252 BC Antigonus lost hisgarrisons at Corinth Chalcis and Eretria The commander of thegarrison at Corinth was Alexander son of Craterus hence nephewto Antigonus He had succeeded his father in that position butperhaps not directly The latest mention of Craterus is in 2710when he led a force from Corinth to aid a tyrant at Elis(unsuccessfully) He would have been about fifty years old at thetime At some time between 270 and 252 Alexander became thegarrison commander One possible explanation for his ldquorevoltrdquo fromhis uncle is that he was not awarded his fatherrsquos position when

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

55

Craterus died but had to wait a few years A possible interimcommander would be the former ldquoarchpiraterdquo Ameinias who was atrusted confederate of Antigonus in 276 and had led a rescue missionto Sparta in 272 apparently on his own authority or at least with anindependent command There is no evidence to support thishypothesis nor is there any evidence to indicate when Craterusdied when Alexander assumed command or why he broke withAntigonus56

Alexander proclaimed himself an independent king of CorinthChalcis and Eretria These other two Antigonid garrisons had joinedin his revolt There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander ascommander of the Corinth garrison also controlled Chalcis andEuboea even the trusted Craterus does not seem to have exercisedany control over those garrisons Such control is not necessary toexplain why they joined him even if he had controlled them hisorders to the subordinate commanders could have easily beendisobeyed in favor of their greater allegiance to king Antigonus Itis more likely that the individuals in charge of the garrisons at Chalcisand Eretria (we do not know their names) had been suborned byAlexander and their troops followed their orders It is tempting tosee the hand of Ptolemy here this would be a fine revenge for hisdefeat by Antigonus at the Battle of Cos But there is no evidencefor any involvement of Ptolemy and if he had worked somepersuasion (bribery) on Alexander the fact remains that Alexanderwas disaffected for some reason and thus susceptible to the influenceof Ptolemy

It would have been a fine revenge indeed because what it costAntigonus was much of his fleet Corinth was an important navalbase for Antigonus although not the only one (he still had ships atPiraeus and at Demetrias and probably other places as well) Itcertainly would have been possible for some of the ships underthe initiative of their own captains to sail away from Corinth andjoin the Antigonid fleet elsewhere just as the fleet of Demetriusafter Ipsus either went over to Ptolemy or back to Antigonusapparently on the initiative of the individual captains Perhaps manyof the ships at Corinth did find their way back to Antigonus thismight explain why Antigonus took no immediate action againstAlexander It wasnrsquot absolutely necessary

Aratus of Sicyon probably had a role to play but the sequence ofevents is unclear Aratus gained control of Sicyon in 2510 probablyafter the revolt of Alexander Shortly afterward Aratus made a voyage

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

56

to Ptolemy to get money which he succeeded in doing He hadearlier received generous gifts from Antigonus and the relationshipbetween the two had been good as had the relationship betweenAntigonus and Cleinias father of Aratus But that would changeAratus made several attempts to dislodge Alexander from Corinthand these attempts whether done with the knowledge or consentof Antigonus or not may explain the inaction of Antigonus hewould let Aratus try his hand first These attempts ended abruptlywhen Alexander made an alliance with the Achaean League ofwhich Sicyon was also a member (Plut Arat 181)

In the meantime Alexander attempted to add Athens to his newkingdom but his invitation was refused and his subsequent forcefulattempts were resisted by Athens with the help of Aristomachos ofArgos (a longtime ally of Antigonus) Athens and Argos eventuallybought peace from Alexander probably in 25049 with Aristomachosproviding the money (IG II2 774) the Piraeus garrison commanderHeracleitus was also instrumental (Syll3 454)

Antigonus does not seem to have offered any direct help to Athensin this incident and he never succeeded in dislodging Alexanderfrom Corinth so far as we know he never tried A shortage ofmanpower is a real possibility Antigonus had always made muchuse of mercenaries Indeed there is no evidence for any generallevy of troops in Macedonia at all the wars of Alexander and theSuccessors had taken their toll on Macedonian manpower and aftera generation or two Macedonians willing and able to soldier werein the employ of all of the hellenistic kings not just the King ofMacedonia At about this time Antigonus had been named guardianof two minor children of King Nicomedes of Bithynia along withPtolemy and several Ionian cities Nicomedes wanted many disparatepowers to guarantee the succession His rejected son by a priormarriage Ziaelas immediately took up arms requiring the guardiansand guarantors to send troops against him (Memnon FGrH 434F14) Perhaps the mission to Bithynia and the loss of the manpowerat Corinth reduced Antigonus to inaction either because of lack ofavailable additional manpower or lack of money to pay them

After a few years (c 247) Antigonus did manage to recoverCorinth by luck cleverness and exertion Alexander died (we donot know how or exactly when) and his widow Nicaea maintainedcontrol of Corinth Antigonus offered her a marriage to his sonDemetrius which she eagerly accepted If it had happened thatmarriage would have returned Corinth to Antigonid control but it

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

57

was not necessary A festive wedding feast was held in the city ofCorinth and while everyone was well occupied in the revelsAntigonus took a small body of troops and marched up to thegarrison on Acrocorinth It was late at night no one was expectedand when he knocked on the door it was opened to him Beforeanyone could consider who was supposed to be in charge histroops had taken control (Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 461) It is a longand steep climb and Antigonus was over 70 years of age whateverthe cause of his inaction up to this point it was not serious illnessor weakness of age The wedding did not of course take place andno more is heard of Nicaea

The naval battle of Andros another victory over Ptolemy tookplace shortly afterward in 246 or 245 There is general agreementon the date because it is assumed the recovery of the naval base atCorinth is a precondition57 Trogus gives the name of the defeatedPtolemaic admiral and Plutarch calls Antigonus ldquothe old manrdquo (geron)in this context where he repeats the anecdote that Antigonusasserting that his own presence compensates for inferiority innumbers The battle is here identified as Andros in Mor 545bPlutarch tells the same story but identifies the battle as Cos Anotherversion of the story (Mor 183c) does not name the naval battleObviously the doublet casts doubt on the accuracy of the event atleast in its attribution to Cos or Andros But both battles are namedand so they did occur and Antigonus was victorious and probablypresent at both (but probably did not say the same thing twice)Antigonus celebrated this victory by instituting two more festivals atDelos the ldquoSoteriardquo and the ldquoPaneiardquo58

It is deceptively simple to suggest that when Antigonus controlledCorinth he had a strong navy and without Corinth he did not Thetwo may not be that closely related The fact is that we do not knowthe size the structure or the basing of the Antigonid fleet We onlyknow that he had one and it was rather well known Plutarch useswhat appears to be a common phrase when he speaks of somethingso thoroughly dissolved that ldquoeven the Antigonid fleet could sailthrough itrdquo (Mor 1078c)

In any event Antigonus did not keep Corinth for long He lost itto Aratus of Sicyon in 243 in a surprise assault on the garrison inthe darkness of night Although he had some help from some of themercenaries inside it was a violent event two of the most importantofficials in the garrison Theophrastus and the philosopher Persaioswere killed59

AN OLD MANrsquoS TROUBLES

58

Immediately after gaining Corinth Aratus arranged to bring thecity into the Achaean League and at the same time brought inTroezen Epidaurus and Megara60 No mention is made of Antigonidgarrisons in this context if he still maintained garrisons in Troezenand Megara they would have been lost at this time Aratus alsoattempted to persuade Athens to join the Achaean League andfollowed up with an invasion of Attica The invasion met with nosuccess whatever and the effort was dropped (Plut Arat 24) EitherAthens remained loyal to Antigonus or the Antigonid forces in thePiraeus and subsidiary garrisons were adequate to the task or both

The relationship between Antigonus and Aratus was a stormyone Antigonus had been on very friendly terms with Cleinias thefather of Aratus and with Aratus as well at first He was inclined toflatter Aratus publicly to win his favor and probably gave him moneyon more than one occasion Aratus sought money from Antigonusand also from Ptolemy It is likely enough that Antigonus did notgive him as much money as he wanted or that Ptolemy was moregenerous The account of Plutarch is not always clear which ldquokingrdquoAratus is importuning for money but he certainly had dealings withboth Antigonus and Ptolemy at one time or another (Plut Arat 2 411 13 15) Antigonus apparently lost the bidding war and paiddearly for it Corinth did not again hold an Antigonid garrison untilDoson recovered it in 2254

Perhaps it did not matter much The loss of Corinth and possiblyother smaller garrisons failed to produce any grave consequencesPolybius insists that probably about this time Antigonus made atreaty with the Aetolians to partition the territory of the AchaeanLeague (headed by Aratus)61 If true this agreement had no resultsIn fact shortly before his death Antigonus made a formal peacewith the Achaean League (Plut Arat 33)

Antigonus Gonatas died in 24039 BC at about eighty years ofage We have no record of the circumstances of his death and thedate must be deduced from the reign of his son Demetrius II62

Demetrius was in his mid-thirties mature experienced and readyto assume the burden of kingship the ldquoglorious servituderdquo asAntigonus had described it (Aelian VH 220)

59

8

THE NATURE OFTHE MONARCHY

We who live in modern constitutional democracies are constantlyaware of the limitations and circumscription of the powers exercisedby political officials and institutions It would be gratifying to usand fully in accord with our traditional thought-processes to beable to make a list of those powers and prerogatives which aMacedonian king possessed and did not possess Such an attempt isfutile however Macedonians and Greeks of the third century BCdid not think exactly as we do Such evidence as exists clearlysuggests that the potential power of the king of Macedonia wasabsolute but his actual power was fluid and depended upon thepolitical realities of the moment The conclusion of Ernst Badian isapt ldquothe king had precisely what rights and powers [he] could getaway withrdquo63

There were no constitutional restraints on Antigonus Althoughhe no doubt consulted with close friends and associates from timeto time there was no organized ldquoCouncil of Friendsrdquo SomeMacedonian kings found it desirable or expedient to convene thearmy in assembly there is no evidence that Antigonus ever did norwas he or any Macedonian king required to do so64 Indeed forAntigonus Gonatas it would not have been possible since he neverhad a standing citizen army He made extensive use of mercenariesand any Macedonian subjects were volunteers serving for pay Thecomposition and size of his military and naval force varied withneed and availability The previous discussion of known garrisoncommanders (Chapter 5) makes this clear Craterus his half-brotherwho was in command at Corinth was a Macedonian Ameinias thearchpirate who had some position at Corinth was probably a PhocianHierocles at the Piraeus was a Carian Heracleitus who succeededHierocles at the Piraeus was an Athenian

Antigonus surely needed to appoint officials to assist him in the

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

60

administration of Macedonia absolute power or not he could nottake care of everything himself The evidence suggests that suchappointments were on an ad hoc basis and a formal title was notnecessary One example is an inscription (Syll3 459) from Bereawhich is dated by the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Antigonus(probably 248I) It contains a letter from Demetrius to Harpalusneither man is identified by title Demetrius rather curtly writes toHarpalus that he has learned that some temple revenues have beendiverted to political use Harpalus is instructed (the imperative isused) to see to it that the revenues are returned to the temple TheDemetrius of this inscription is certainly the son of Antigonus thefuture Demetrius II He doesnrsquot need a title Harpalus obviously hasthe authority and power to do what is demanded of him he issome kind of official in the city of Berea or the region but no titleis used He knew what his job was and so presumably did everyoneelse concerned

The status of cities and regions within Macedonia was variabledepending in large part on the traditions of the city or perhaps itsrelationship to the king Evidence is meager but the variability isdemonstrated by a series of inscriptions from the island of Cosdated to 242165 The Coans are seeking grants of asylum to thetemple of Asclepius on Cos and what they have in common is thatall express goodwill between the individual cities and Cos andbetween king Antigonus and Cos The four cities are CassandreiaAmphipolis Philippi and Pella They are four major cities inMacedonia not far apart but they are not governed the same wayEach awarded the grant of asylum Cassandreia passed a decree inthe bottle Philippi passed a decree in the ekklesia and Amphipolisand Pella simply issued the decree by ldquothe city ofhelliprdquo The internalgoverning structure is obviously not identical

Macedonia had not been an urban culture and this did not changeunder Antigonus The larger cities were earlier Greek colonies whichhad become part of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II Somecities established by kings (Philippi Thessaloniki Cassandreia) wouldeventually become important at a later date but in the third centurythey were not major urban centers of the Greek-speaking worldAntigonus is believed to have founded at least three cities all namedAntigoneia on the Axius river in Paonia (Pliny NH 41017) onthe Aous river in Atintania (Pliny NH 411) and in Chalcidice(Livy 4410) but none of them became cities of any importance andtheir locations are quite uncertain66 They may have been not much

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

61

more than garrison towns designed as a permanent presence againstnorthern tribes

Some cities in Macedonia may have had a democratic polis formof government for their internal affairs others may have had anindividual (or several of them) appointed by the king to administertheir affairs but there is no evidence for any consistency and noepistates of a city as in later Ptolemaic Egypt67 It must be noted thatepistates like epimeletes or strategos common word is a in Greekoften merely descriptive of a function and not necessarily a titleWhen they do become titles the actual meaning can vary from onetime and place to another The earliest reference to any epistates orhypepistates in Macedonia is IG 2 11028 from Thessaloniki datedto the reign of Demetrius II c 230 BC and IG 2 12 from thesame city during the reign of Antigonus Doson c 2243 These areapparently minor officials

There is a relatively plentiful supply of evidence for a strategosif the term is taken to mean simply someone who commands troopsBut an individual who is called strategos does not because of thatdescriptive title function as a provincial or regional governor Thepower and authority of the individual depended on that individualrsquosrelationship to the king and the kingrsquos needs at the time68

For several reasons one should not expect the same complexityof government in Antigonid Macedonia as in the contemporaryhellenistic monarchies to the east While the cosmopolitan natureof the hellenistic world does suggest that regional differences wouldeventually diminish the differences were still profound during thereign of Gonatas Even if one assumes that the rulers of the threemajor kingdoms held similar ideas of government (a dubiousassumption) they were faced with three very different bodies oftradition on which to impose those ideas It would take some timebefore the convergence of practice would be apparent In factsimilarities do begin to appear by the late third century BC a fewgenerations after the unifying conquest of Alexander But the reignof Gonatas is too early to expect successful imitation of or agreementwith the more complex eastern governments Antigonus Gonataswas very likely unable to impose any rigid organization on hisgovernmental structure and may have been unwilling to do so

Although Antigonus can be said to have governed after a fashionfrom 283 onward he did not have any significant control until afterthe battle of Lysimacheia in 277 Only a few years later he lostcontrol temporarily to Pyrrhus He recovered Macedonia by c 272

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

62

at the latest but any attention he might have given to internaladministration was soon diverted by the tensions leading to theoutbreak of the Chremonidean War which was a direct challengeto his international position Throughout this period he had to attendto affairs in Greece it was necessary to establish his relationshipwith the various Greek cities Only after c 250 would he have hadthe leisure to organize his internal administration systematically ifindeed he was ever inclined to do so At that point it must haveoccurred to him that he had already been governing for about thirtyyears without any clear organized system and there was no urgentneed to change things The flexibility which he had practiced out ofnecessity at first may in the end have been desirable

The power of Antigonus as king was largely personal His personalpopularity was all-important and his personal relationship withsubordinates was crucial The king necessarily delegated authorityto others who rarely had a fixed title and the limits of their authoritywere likewise not clearly stated The overriding authority of theking himself may have been the only effective limit The relationshipbetween the king and his subordinates was one of personal trustThe king chose individuals to govern or exercise the necessaryauthority in his name and simply trusted them to do it (whateverldquoitrdquo was) Since the king was by definition the most powerful manin Macedonia violation of that trust could have grave consequencesa fact known to all The kingship of Macedonia and especially inthe reign of Gonatas rested on minimal legal foundations thesuccessful king of Macedonia was essentially a masterful politician

Some movement toward a systematic well-defined internalorganization may have begun in the reign of his son and successorDemetrius II although specific evidence is lacking There are tracesof more organized administration under Antigonus III Doson andunder Philip V Macedonia is governed not too differently in principlefrom the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms

Doson had not only the stability of fifty years of Antigonid ruleover Macedonia which provided comfortable circumstances in whichto bring about a careful reorganization of government he also hada strong motivation to do so He came to power as regent for theyoung Philip V and knew all along that fate could make Philip aking while very young Philip would need all the help he could getfrom a strong reliable and consistent internal organization ofofficialsmdashsomething which had not heretofore been necessary Onthe contrary Antigonus Gonatas was a man of mature years and

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

63

judgment when he became king if early in his reign he wasconcerned about the succession of his son at a tender age competentregents were at hand in the persons of his half-brothers Craterusand Demetrius the Fair Antigonus did not die too soon DemetriusII was over thirty years of age on his accession and had the addedadvantage of experience for many years with his father He toohad an available regent for his young son in the person of hiscousin Antigonus Doson a man of mature years and wide experienceDoson did serve as regent for Philip the son of Demetrius Eventuallyhe became king in his own name but as caretaker pending Philiprsquosmaturity In the event of his death prior to Philiprsquos coming of agethere was for the first time in Antigonid history no close male relativestanding by ready to assist a young king It was a new problemrequiring a new solution strong organization For a strong kingwith mature judgment flexibility and informality could beadvantageous often desirable For a young and inexperienced kingthe same situation could be dangerous Thus it was only late in thereign of Doson that the Macedonian structure of government beganto parallel the more rigid and complex bureaucracies of the Ptolemiesand Seleucids

The same situation can be seen in the relationship of Antigonusto the Greek cities The relationship was not formal it was notspelled out in detail by formal treaty or edict of the king Rather theking seems to have undertaken considerable effort to cultivate closepersonal relationships with important politicians in Athens in Argosand he attempted to do as much with Aratus of Sicyon We have noevidence for the relationship of the king to individuals in Corinthalthough one must suspect something similar took place

Antigonus governed in Macedonia and exercised a hegemony inGreece primarily through personal connections He relied on hisfriends and associates to act in his interests There was little practicaldifference whether the individuals involved were Macedonians ornatives of a Greek city The tyrants at Argos during most of his reigngoverned in his interests because it was also in their interest Athenianpoliticians especially after 255 BC were no doubt patriotic Atheniansbut were also friends or adherents of Antigonus and effectivelygoverned in his interest The trusted subordinates who wereMacedonians also could function more or less autonomously butin the interests of the king His half-brother Craterus was involvedin the ransom of Mithres with apparent full power to negotiate butthere was no doubt he was acting on behalf of Antigonus The

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

64

same man led a relief force (unsuccessfully) to aid the tyrant of Eliswithout any apparent involvement of Antigonus Heracleitus (anAthenian) the commander of the Piraeus garrison energeticallydefended both his Macedonian garrison and the city of Athens againstthe attacks of Alexander son of Craterus Alexanderrsquos successfulrevolt is an indication of how complete was the trust betweenAntigonus and his subordinates Had there been a rigid chain ofcommand known limits to the power of the subordinate or anykind of ldquochecks and balancesrdquo in the system at all the revolt ofAlexander may not have been possible

Under the circumstances the success of Antigonus depended onhow well he chose good men to assist him in exercising his powerThe revolt of Alexander must be counted as a failure on the part ofAntigonus He also seems to have experienced some failures inAthens in the years immediately preceding the Chremonidean WarOn balance however he was rather successful in maintaining powerfor forty years a power which ultimately depended on personalrelationships

One cannot overlook the possible influence on Antigonus of hisfather Demetrius Poliorcetes was a Macedonian and operated withinthis same Macedonian tradition yet he was more likely than mostto defy tradition where it suited his purposes Despite someideological flirtations Demetrius was basically a very practical manand so was his son Demetrius developed an admiration andunderstanding of the Greekpolis traditions especially those of Athensand he arranged for his son to be educated in the philosophicalschools at Athens As a result Antigonus Gonatas may have had agreater understanding of the Greeks than any other Macedonianking in or out of Macedonia Also Demetrius had always looked togreater things than Macedonia Although Gonatas was considerablyless ambitious than his father he had a broad vision of Macedoniaand its position in the international arena

The Greek political tradition had much in common with theMacedonian tradition Notwithstanding the Greek (especiallyAthenian) emphasis on the supremacy of law and of institutionspolitical power was still essentially personal Political and socialconnections mattered very much for one who chose to hold politicalpower within the legal framework and an individual was heldpersonally accountable for his actions Political failure could havesocial as well as legal consequences In his relationship with Athensfor example Antigonus could follow the Macedonian tradition of

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

65

personal political connections while leaving the legal andinstitutional formalities to his Athenian friends

The cherished autonomy of the Greek polis was something wellunderstood by Antigonus who was content to honor that traditionso long as in so doing he did not violate his own necessary primarygoals Except for the period immediately following the ChremonideanWar in Athens the cities of Greece appeared to function as sovereignstates with the implied provision that they must not work contraryto the interests of Antigonus

Edward Luttwak in describing the Roman empire under the Julio-Claudians69 has written

ldquoThe control mechanism was complexhellipalways there was thelatent threat of forcehellipBy channeling money and favors throughchosen client chiefs the Romans helped the latter gain power overtheir subjects while the Romans gained power over themrdquo (pp 36ndashI) and

ldquoThe rulers of eastern client states and their subjects did notactually have to see Roman legions marching toward their cities inorder to respond to Romersquos commandshelliprdquo (p 32)

Antigonus followed a similar practice His strategically locatedgarrisons were sufficient reminders of the ldquolatent threat of forcerdquobut not nearly adequate to actually maintain control by force Forthe most part it was not necessary to ldquoactually have to seerdquo hismilitary force to believe that it would be used and used effectively

ldquoThe stability of the system requires a constant diplomatic effortrdquo(Luttwak 1976 p 192) One need not doubt that the hegemony ofGreece required a similar constant diplomatic effort from GonatasThe most conspicuous failure was the Chremonidean War resultingin the only instance wherein the Greek cities did actually see hismilitary force used against them On the one hand any resort tomilitary force can be seen as a failure of diplomatic activity On theother hand the fact that it was necessary only once in forty yearsand that it was successful indicates that the policy on balance wassuccessful

Walter Lacquer offered his analysis of a similar kind of hegemonyin the modern world70 He observed that the Soviet Union exertedan influence over neighboring Finland in which the threat of forcewas not at all obvious but in which certain understandings prevailedincluding that ldquoonly those political parties approved by the SovietUnion can participate in the governmentrdquo of the sovereign nation ofFinland and that ldquothe Finns are supposed to exert self-censorshiprdquo

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

66

(Laquer 1977 p 38) A similar situation prevailed for AntigonusGonatas in third-century Greece most notably Athens after 255 BC(but also earlier and especially while Demetrius was king ofMacedonia) The approval of the king of course was not formaland generally not publicly admitted or announced ldquoit is part of thewhole process to deny its very existencerdquo (Lacquer 1977 p 38)The maintenance of the fiction of the complete independence ofthe Greek cities was both necessary and desirable First the traditionof independence was profoundly felt and any violation would at aminimum nullify any support the king might receive from individualswithin the cities Second internal opposition or outside agitationwas minimized by the simple fact that it is difficult to liberate thatwhich is already free Opponents of Gonatas had first to convincethe citizens that they needed liberating The deliberately impreciseand informal nature of the hegemony enhanced its effectivenessand minimized the dangers to it

Greece was a buffer state for Macedonia against Ptolemymdashorany other potential threat from the south or eastmdashin the same waythat Macedonia served as a buffer for Greece against the barbariansto the north By thus defending Greece (through fortifications andpolitical control) he also defended Macedonia It was the ambitionof Antigonus to secure Macedonia and to exercise a preponderantinfluence in Greece He never attempted outright conquest of Greeceperhaps because he was unable to do so but it is also true that thesubjugation of Greece was neither necessary nor desirable Antigonusgoverned in the Macedonian tradition and the autonomy allowedto Greek cities was probably not significantly greater than the localautonomy customary in Macedonia Macedonian government wastraditionally autocratic but not totalitarian

An ill-defined hegemony of Greece was effective there were noobvious reliable alternatives Subjugation and incorporation of Greeceinto his kingdom would have been very costly in time and resourcesand given the Greek traditions of independence ultimate successwas by no means assured To pursue no involvement whatsoeverand allow the Greeks complete freedom of action was to invitedisaster Antigonus understood well the instability of Greek politicsit was safer to attempt to manipulate Greek political life than toremain apart from it and become a victim of someone elsersquosmanipulation The issue could not be considered in a vacuumAntigonus inherited his position from Demetrius who had beenfully involved in Greece The king of Macedonia had been involved

THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY

67

in Greek affairs for several generations since the time of Philip IIwhose policies and practices were very much like those employedby Antigonus He had to deal with the world as he found it For himto abandon his possessions and his role in Greek political life wouldhave been seen as a sign of weakness by many and his tenure ofMacedonia itself would not long survive such an abdication of powerIf he had been inclined toward creative statecraft to the establishmentof some kind of confederacy with the Greek cities there was notime for it

His position as king of Macedonia was somewhat more securebecause he had arguably inherited the position but it requiredcontinued political and social skills The Greek hegemony dependedalmost entirely on his personal relationships with individuals Adisplay of military force (garrisons) was necessary but was not theessential component Under the circumstances the degree of successis impressive

The political career of Antigonus Gonatas calls to mind anotherbetter-known individual Octavian later known as Augustus Theyoung Octavian studied in Greece and like most Roman aristocratsof the late Republic he was familiar with the history of hellenistickings Perhaps he saw patterns worth emulating in Antigonus LikeAntigonus he had a ldquofatherrdquo (by adoption Caesar) who had reachedthe pinnacle of power but was removed from it at least partlybecause he had exercised that power too obviously He too wouldhave to deal with those who resented any infringement on theirfreedom even though they saw his overwhelming power Augustusallowed the Roman Republic to function or appear to do so just asAntigonus allowed the Greek cities to remain free and self-governingor appear to be so Both continued to maintain an adequate if nottoo visible military and naval force Both created a system over thecourse of four decades which endured for more than a century

68

9

THE MAN ANDTHE KING

What can one know about Antigonus the man He has left us noscrapbook no official records and no lengthy memoirs Even if hehad we might be well advised to consider it carefully since suchthings do not always tell a full and accurate story We have anecdotalglimpses of the man and any conclusions must be very tentative

What did he look like Plutarch tells us (Mor 458F) only that hewas relatively ugly in contrast to his famously handsome father Heis supposed to have resembled the god Pan whose image gracedsome of his coins and a small bronze bust may be a likeness ofhim but this is uncertain71 The face has ldquolarge protruding ears anda pair of outwardly turned horns [which] produce a wild terror-striking face with swollen eyebrows and a flattened hawkrsquos noserdquo72

His allegiance to the god Pan may have begun with his victory overthe Gauls at Lysimacheia or after his victory in the Battle of Cos orhave predated both the coins cannot be dated with sufficientaccuracy One of the several festivals he established at Delos was inhonor of the god Pan

How did he live Again no specific information is availablealthough the general accoutrements of the good life (clothingbuildings implements) in the third century BC are rather wellunderstood and should be assumed Archaeological investigationin Macedonia is relatively young and the surface remains of buildingsare few and in a state of nearly complete ruin (there is nothingcomparable to for example the Parthenon in Athens) The locationsof Demetrias Pella and Aegae (Vergina) are known portions offortification walls remain at Demetrias as well as foundations of afew structures including one identified as the probable ldquopalacerdquo apalace site has been identified at Pella and at Vergina this lastprobably built during the reign of Antigonus73 He no doubt spentsome time at all of these places as well as at Corinth and Athens

THE MAN AND THE KING

69

but as indicated earlier we can rarely determine where he wasresiding at any particular point in time nor how long he remainedin that place If he had a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all it was probably Demetriasalthough the traditional royal residence of Pella would be veryimportant Aegae (Vergina) seems to have been something of aldquosummer palacerdquo and religious and cultural center the royal tombsof Macedonian kings were located there Macedonia was not anurban culture and Macedonian kings especially the first and secondgeneration after Alexander were not territorial kings they werenot kings of a defined territory and not even necessarily of a definedethnic group of people they were simply ldquokingsrdquo whose territoryand subjects were somewhat variable This is most true of the Seleucidempire What was Seleucus king of ldquoAsiardquo ldquoSyriardquo Both terms wereused It is somewhat less true of Ptolemy because Egypt was arather well defined entity But the Ptolemies always controlled someterritory outside of Egypt as well Macedonia was also a knownlocation and people but where were the borders It is not possiblefor us to know and it is quite possible that Antigonus himself didnot always know either Certainly some of the inhabitants were notldquoMacedoniansrdquo in the ethnic or linguistic sense for example in theGreek coastal cities

For such a non-territorial king it is probably misleading to speakof a ldquocapital cityrdquo at all He lived wherever he wanted to at themoment and his administrative staff such as it was either followedhim around or could be located anywhere and everywhere nodoubt some of each

But that is not to say Antigonus was a semi-nomadic barbarianOn the contrary he was obviously an educated man with anappreciation of high culture He had no need to establish anintellectual and artistic center as did the Ptolemies at Alexandria orthe Attalids later at Pergamum It already existed in Athens whichwas under his hegemony but not only at Athens Macedonian kingsbefore him had brought poets and artists to Macedonia and Tarndevoted a chapter74 to identifying the various poets historians andphilosophers who at one time or another made Macedonia theirresidence during the reign of Antigonus Among the more permanentresidents were the aged historian Hieronymus of Cardia who hadbeen associated with the Antigonids for three generations and wrotehis history early in the reign of Antigonus (which unfortunatelysurvives only in fragments of Diodorus) and the poet Aratus ofSoli who wrote a bridal hymn for Antigonus and Phila and may

THE MAN AND THE KING

70

have written his Phaenomena at the specific request of AntigonusThe association of Antigonus with many of the philosophers of histime is well known and has already been mentioned The religiousenvoys which had been sent to all the hellenistic kings by the Indianking Asoka recently converted to Buddhism had their best chanceof a serious and cordial reception at the court of Antigonus75

His interest in the life of the mind and his intellectual capacityfor it are not in doubt Had he been born into different circumstancesAntigonus might have been one of historyrsquos intellectuals but hebecame a king instead Though we can glimpse his character onlyfrom anecdotes they all reveal a man who was practical confidentdisciplined and even witty as well as intelligent Plutarch (Mor545b) called him a man of no illusions and moderate in his thinking

He had the intelligence to take advantage of opportunities andto make his own opportunities a strategic vision which developedand maintained a functioning monarchy in Macedonia and ahegemony in Greece for forty years with minimum cost in resourcesand manpower His strategy during the Chremonidean War wasvery clever had he been a little more clever there may have beenno Chremonidean War His ruse to recover Corinth from the widowof Alexander son of Craterus was also clever had he been moreclever he might not have lost Corinth to Alexander

The frequent anecdotes about his parties remind us that he wasvery human much more than the quiet intellectual The anecdotesare all of course in later sources but it is worth noting that this isthe kind of image of the man which survived the years Part of theruse to recover Corinth from Nicaea was the lavishness of thebanquet and it seems not unexpected of him Zeno referred to hisnoisy parties and in the brief life of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius(DL441) tells of a birthday party for Halkyoneus his illegitimateson for which Antigonus spent an astounding amount of moneyHe was a generous man he was more generous than would beexpected with an illegitimate son and he gave gifts including moneyto many of his friendsmdashfor example 3000 drachma to thephilosopher Cleanthes (DL 7169)mdashand this seems to have beentypical

He had a sardonic sense of humor and most especially had theability to laugh at himself and his condition In the midst of theChremonidean War when the outcome was uncertain he couldlaugh at the teasing gift of fish and figs from Patroclus At anothertime (uncertain) when reminded that the other kings called

THE MAN AND THE KING

71

themselves gods and asked why he did not do likewise he respondedthat the man who carried his chamber pot knew he was no god(Plut Mor 360c-d) We are told that he called the diadem (a strip oflinen worn around the kingrsquos head) a a mere ldquoragrdquo and that heconsidered monarchy ldquoa glorious servituderdquo

Stoic philosophy would have been very helpful because whenone steps back to look at the whole life Antigonus experienced atleast as much volatility and change of fortune as did his more famousfather perhaps more so The following chart which necessarilydouble-counts some experiences shared by father and son revealsthe major successes and reverses of each The numbers are notsurprisingly greater for Antigonus since they are the sum of eventscovering nearly fifty years whereas those for Demetrius cover aboutthirty years

Antigonus lived a long and eventful life The accomplishmentswere considerable He created a stable monarchy which wouldendure for a century indeed the last Antigonid king of MacedoniaPerseus was removed by force of Roman arms and not by internalweakness He established his Macedonia as a ldquogreat powerrdquo inhellenistic geopolitics a position which it retained for the remainder

THE MAN AND THE KING

72

of its existence and which was not inevitable The chaos in the280s before his victory at Lysimacheia could have resulted in aninsignificant peripheral Macedonia similar to its status prior to PhilipII The personal efforts and decisions of Antigonus II Gonatas createdhellenistic Macedonia

73

NOTES

NOTES TO PAGES 1ndash71 It could mean ldquoknockkneedrdquo or something else about his knees but no

etymology seems satisfactory For full discussion see ELBrownldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo

2 DL 7169 9110 2141 76 736 4413 When Zeno died in 261 it was at the specific request of Antigonus that

Athens passed a decree in his honor (DL 711)4 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 Polyaen 655 Plut Dem 8 14ndash1621 DS 2045ndash52 82ndash88 91ndash1006 Plut Pyrr 4 It is unlikely that Antigonus was present at Ipsus for two

reasons First Demetrius no doubt would want to leave someone ofauthority and status in charge of his affairs in Greece during his absencealthough very young Antigonus possessed the requisite status for thejob Second Plutarchrsquos reference to Antigonus as a meirakion a veryyoung man when describing events six or seven years later probablyindicates that in 301 Antigonus was not battle-seasoned and Ipsus wassure to be a major battle Antigonus would be of little use We can onlyspeculate whether anyone thought of the wisdom of not having threegenerations of an allegedly royal family present at one battle it certainlywould not have been a good idea Antigonus the grandfather andDemetrius the father were quite enough to risk in one battle The silenceof our sources suggests that even if Antigonus were present he played nomajor role Indeed Plutarch had two opportunities to mention Antigonusat Ipsus and failed to do so (the life of Demetrius and that of Pyrrhus)

NOTES TO PAGES 8ndash207 JGabbert ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo8 IG II2 682 Plut Mor 851d-f Paus 12639 JSeiber t Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in

hellenistischer Zeit GMCohen ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus andNicaeardquo p 354

10 Paus 1263 lists four specific activities for which Olympiodorus washonored and it has been difficult to place these in their correct context

NOTES

74

Opinions vary see TLShear ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt ofAthens in 286 BCrdquo for full discussion and bibliography where therecovery of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed in 2810 (pp 26ndash9n 62) I have dealt with the career of Olympiodorus in ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorus of Athens (c 340ndash270 BC)rdquo AncW 27 (1996) 59ndash66

11 The capture of the Piraeus by Olympiodorus is placed elsewhere bymany scholars but this conclusion also has support most recently fromBengtson Die Diadochen pp 11 Off See Shear op cit p 52 n 144for earlier bibliography

12 Plut Dem 44ndash46 Mor 851 IG II2 682 649 389 666 667 Shear opcit Agora I 7295 Paus 1261 Shearrsquos monograph is a thorough well-documented discussion of all relevant evidence One might not acceptall of his conclusions yet the permanent value to scholarship of thismagnum opus is obvious

13 Kallias decree (Agora I 7295) lines 131414 Shear op cit p 76 with citations of all the evidence15 Sextus Empiricus Adv gramm 276 records an incident involving

Sostratus sent from Ptolemy reciting a few lines from Homer toldquoAntigonusrdquo HHeinen ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 196ndashI considers this an allusion to thenaval battle of Cos shortly after the Chremonidean War which dates theevent much later This allusion is not obvious however and this referencemight mean that Sostratus representing Ptolemy for the negotiations inAthens in 2876 is dealing with Antigonus Gonatas who is representinghis father Demetrius

16 For full discussion see Shear op cit passim The sticking point is abrief commentary by the later traveler Pausanias who reports theinscription on a statue base dedicated to Olympiodorus Olympiodoruswas honored for doing four things One of the activities of Olympiodorusclearly refers to activity against Cassander at an earlier date Anotherrefers to a rescue of Eleusis which probably also dates to the reign ofCassander but could be contemporary with other events The greatestachievement of Olympiodorus is said to have been his storming of theMuseum Hill in Athens and driving out the Macedonians and this wasdone with a small force of old men and youngsters The second greatestevent was his recovery of the Piraeus garrison Shear op cit pp 11 12and Christian Habicht Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athensim 3 Jahrhundert v Chr p 61 and others are very inclined to put theexpulsion of the Macedonian garrison from the Museum Hill in thisparticular situation The recovery of the Piraeus garrison is the mostdifficult but may be associated with an earlier action against Cassander(Habicht pp 95ndash112 Paus 101) But see above where I have associatedit with the expulsion of Lachares Another relevant piece of informationis the decree for the mercenary Strombichus (IG II2667) He is honoredand given Athenian citizenship in 2665 because at some earlier time hehad thrown in his lot with the Athenians and assisted in storming theMacedonian garrison on the Museum Hill in which he had previouslybeen second in command That activity can also be associated with thisrevolt It explains why Olympiodorus could storm the garrison with a

NOTES

75

small force of old men and boys he had the assistance of some of theMacedonian mercenaries themselves However it is not a certainty thatthe Museum Hill was taken by the Athenians at this time The decreehonoring Kallias indicates that at the time of his action against Demetriusldquothe fort on the Mouseion was still occupiedrdquo (line 13 Shearrsquos translation)This decree was passed a full sixteen years later at which time it wouldcertainly be appropriate to mention a very important event like theexpulsion of the garrison in the Museum if it had occurred later inconnection with Kalliasrsquo activity at all The end of the revolt of Athenswas negotiated through the influence of the philosopher Crates andDemetrius sailed off to Asia the Ptolemaic fleet went home and KingPyrrhus who had been summoned by the Athenians to aid them againsta siege by Demetrius arrived too late to do anything except warn theAthenians to never again allow a king in their city This revolt seems notto have accomplished much at all perhaps partly because Demetriusstill had a garrison within the city Justin found no need to mention it inhis very summary account and in two biographies of Hellenistic kingsPlutarch says almost nothing about it Indeed Plutarch indicates in hisLife of Demetrius (Dem 51) that when Demetrius was captured bySeleucus he sent a message to his son and to commanders and friendsin Athens and in Corinth that they should consider him dead If we areto believe Plutarch Demetrius still considered Athens very much underhis control or influence And in his account of the entire episode in hisLife of Pyrrhus (Pyrr 12) Plutarch says nothing at all about the revolutionin Athens merely that Pyrrhus visited the city in order to perhaps hinderthe growing power of Demetrius As will be seen a likely occasion forthe betrayal by Strombichus and the storming of the Museum garrison isthe time when news reached Athens of the death of Demetrius in late283 or early 282 BC For full discussion see Gabbert ldquoThe Career ofOlympiodorusrdquo AncW27 (1996) 59ndash66

17 PHerc 339 col v see also Shear op cit p 29 n 6118 Dittenberger Syll3 459 an inscription from Berea dated in the thirty-

sixth year of King Antigonus see also LRobert REG 64 (1951) 171ndash173and MChambers ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo p 390

NOTES TO PAGES 21ndash3219 For a full discussion of events and complete citation of sources see

Chapter 11 ldquoThe Years of Chaosrdquo and relevant appendices in Hammondand Walbankrsquos A History of Macedonia volume III Of course many ofthe conclusions remain arguable

20 Memnon FGrH F8 3b Justin 24121 This event is placed in 285 by Shear op cit p 8322 Justin 241 ldquoalmost allrdquo (omnes ferme) of the Greek cities were at war

with Antigonus but made war against him indirectly by attacking hisallies the Aetolians

23 Paus 454 Justin 25224 Paus 143 10205 2212

NOTES

76

25 Syll3 454 line I ldquoand has now been appointed by the king as general(strategos) of the Piraeus and of the other places organized with(tattomenon) the Piraeusrdquo This certainly includes Salamis where theinscription was found and probably Sunium and Rhamnous

26 Polyaen 4618 Trogus Prol 2527 Peace with Antiochus Justin 251 The evidence for this marriage is

scattered and largely inferential The poet Aratus of Soli apparently wrotea hymn to celebrate the wedding Phila like her mother was a frequentvisitor and dedicator to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos For fullerdiscussion see Tarn Antigonos Gonatas pp 174 226ndash227 350 PeterGreen Alexander to Actium pp 141ndash143 and CAH 7203 ff

28 Plut Pyrr 267 Some of the tombs located near modern Verghina havebeen excavated in recent decades One of the unlooted tombs may bethat of Philip II or his illegitimate son Philip III Arrhidaeus See MAndronikos Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City

29 The following account is based on Plut Pyrr 26ndash34 and Justin 25

NOTES TO PAGES 33ndash4430 DS 19593 Plut Dem 142 373 Trogus Prol 2631 Justin 261 Paus 551 Plut Mor 251a 253a32 Trogus Prol 26 Plut Arat 172 for discussion see Hammond and

Walbank A Histor y of Macedonia vol Ill p 301 Green Alexander toActium p 148 and CAH 72 247

33 Plut Arat 17 Polyaen 46134 Paus 284 783 Plut Arat 181 223 234 Polyaen 6535 No 23 in ELeGrand ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo A broken statue base

containing the words phrourarchos (ldquogarrison commanderrdquo) and phrour-(probably ldquogarrisonrdquo)

36 Polyaen 517 PHerc 1418 DL 2127 429 Syll3 454 Plut Arat 34137 For example IG II21217 1280 1281 1285 SEG III 122 SEG XXV 153

15538 Not much is left of the city today but enough foundation stones to

confirm its size and the strength of its walls The earlier archaeologicalinvestigation published by F Staehlin et al Pagasai und DemetriasBeschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte is revised in some particularsby NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquoand SCBakhuizen ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquoMilojcic and Theocharis have published recent work in Demetrias I

39 IG II2 683 775 776 780 803 BDMeritt ldquoAthenian Archons 3476ndash48I BCrdquo WBDinsmoor ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosldquo

40 Emile Bourguet Fouilles de Delphes vol Ill Epigraphie fasc 1 no 479SEG 11261 Beloch Griechische Geschichte IV p 2 503 Flaceliegravere LesAitoliens a Delphes Contribution a lrsquohistoire de la Gregravece centrale au IIIesiegravecle av JC pp 197ndash198 Heinz Heinen ldquoUntersuchungen zurhellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts v Chrrdquo pp 131139ndash141

41 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938942 Ibid

NOTES

77

NOTES TO PAGES 45ndash5343 I have argued elsewhere for the date See Gabbert ldquoThe Anarchic Dating

of the Chremonidean Warrdquo pp 230ndash235 which contains a fullbibliography for other possibilities there is also more recent discussionin Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III pp 278ndash80 and Green Alexander to Actium pp 147ndash148 The date of the knownAthenian archons for the first and last year of the war remains controversialand much auxiliary evidence has been brought into the effort to datethis war some of it not very relevant In the final analysis there isequally good reason to place Peithidemos in 268I or 2654 and Antipaterin 2632 or 2621 1 prefer the shorter chronology for the war because if(and this is a big ldquoif rdquo) we know all of the major events of the war theycould and should happen within a span of two or three years If thewar lasted longer we must wonder what else was happening and wehave no evidence of anything else The placement of Peithidemos in2654 and Antipater in 2632 allows the events of this short war to makesense but it begs explanation of some apparent hostilities referred to intwo inscriptions (IG II2 665 and 666 archons Menekles and Nikias)rather securely dated to 2676 and 2665 the two years previous to theofficial outbreak of the war if Peithidemos is correctly placed in 2654If we knew the proximate causes of the war it would help That therewere a few incidents prior to the official declaration of war is certainlyossible and perhaps likely Whatever the proximate causes were whichto a formal declaration of war and a well-planned strategy by PtolemyPhiladelphus Athens Sparta and perhaps others they probably tooksome time to unfold

44 IG II2 665 lines 8ndash12 666 line 18 667 line 7 These references among otherthings cause many scholars to date the outbreak of the war to an earlier date

45 DL 717 Chremonides was probably a decade or so younger thanAntigonus

46 James McCredie ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo 113 also SEGXXIV154 an inscription honoring the Athenian Epichares for aiding thetroops with Patroclus (among other things)

47 This may be the setting for an incident in Polyaenus (463) where theMegarians doused pigs with pitch and set them on fire the ldquoflamingpigsrdquo startled the elephants of Antigonus who thereafter ordered theirhandlers to keep pigs among the elephants so that they would get usedto the sound and smell (that it was the squealing of the animals ratherthan the fire which disturbed the elephants) The stratagem was a copyof one worked against Pyrrhus by the Romans probably at BeneventumIn any case Antigonus managed to deal with it

48 Paus 111 suggests coastal patrols and landing parties (ldquohe ravaged Atticawith an army and a fleetrdquo) This sort of action did not require much of anaval force It is likely that most of Antigonusrsquo ships remained in port

49 The notion is so widespread that detailed citation is impractical Somesamples Tarn Antigonos Gonatas p 313 MCary A History of the GreekWorld 323ndash146 BC p 134 Grace McCurdy Hellenistic Queens p 120A useful correction (with additional citation) is offered by Stanley Burstein

NOTES

78

ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo The new edition of CAH72 (Walbank) p 237 adopts a more moderate view

50 Burstein ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphusrdquo p 20551 That Antigonus was building a fleet see EWill Histoire politique du

monde hellenistique volI pp 219ndash221 that Ptolemy was creating adiversion to mask his movements in the Aegean islands see EERiceThe Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus p 191 that Ptolemywas supporting a patrioticnationalist move by Athens CHabichtUntersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundertsv Chr pp 95ndash112 It is more common and quite understandable forscholars to write vaguely about this war and its causes to suggest multiplepossible war aims or general preventive and opportunistic motives onthe part of Ptolemy

52 Apollodorus FGrH 244 F44 ldquoand it was set forth that all things shouldbe decided by one [man]rdquo There is no evidence for any ldquoepistatesrdquo oroverseer appointed by and reporting to Antigonus not in this case noranywhere else in Greece Rather the ldquoonerdquo referred to was Antigonushimself This fragment is just that a fragment without context and is asecondary or even tertiary source providing vague and rather generalizedinformation from an original source unknown to us

53 Eusebius Chronicon enters ldquoAntigonus Atheniensibus rursus deditlibertatemrdquo for the year 255

54 See Hammond and Walbank A History of Macedonia vol III p 292 andAppendix 4 ldquoThe Date of the Battles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

NOTES TO PAGES 54ndash5855 For full discussion of the festivals see Hammond and Walbank A History

of Macedonia vol III pp 598ndash599 and Cary Reger ldquoThe Date of theBattle of Kosrdquo p 158 and notes

56 The earlier action of Craterus was discussed in Chapter 5 Ameinias inChapter 3 For the revolt of Alexander the major source is Plutarchrsquos lifeof Aratus 17 Trogus Prol 26 offers some help and Suidas svEuphorion identifies Alexander as ldquokingrdquo of ldquoEuboeardquo and a decree ofEretria (IG 9 212) refers to ldquoAlexander the kingrdquo

57 Trogus Prol 27 ldquoAntigonus Andro proelio navali Oprona viceritrdquo PlutPelopidas 24 See ANOikonomides ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle ofAndrosrdquo pp 151ndash152 and for a recent full discussion see HammondMacedonia vol III pp 303ndash306 and Appendix IV ldquoThe Date of theBattles of Cos and Androsrdquo pp 587ndash600

58 The deities honored are unusual at Delos and therefore these foundationsare probably based on a specific event such as a naval victory KostasBuraselis Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agaumlis pp 144ndash145

59 Plut Arat 18ndash23 Polyaen 65 Paus 284 783 Athenaeus 162d TrogusProl 26 In some versions Persaios escaped the carnage

60 Plut Arat 243 Paus 285 Polyb 243461 Polyb 2439 2451 9346 938962 Hammond Macedonia vol III p 313 n 6

NOTES

79

NOTES TO PAGES 59ndash6763 Ernst Badian ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo p 19864 RMErrington ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchyrdquo

pp 77ndash133 passim Errington rightly considers an informal consensusof support especially by the nobility to have been the most importantpolitical basis for the royal exercise of power

65 Rudolf Herzog and Gunther Klaffenbach Asylieurkunden aus Kos Nos 6 and I66 Hammond Macedonia vol III locates an Antigoneia in Epirus on the

map Fig 8 (p 153) and another on the Axius river in Macedonia on themap Fig 3 (p 33) which he indicates was probably founded byAntigonus Gonatas (p 268) both are mentioned in the narrative ofevents much later than Antigonus (pp 333423526) and may have beenfounded by Antigonus Doson or by Demetrius II and named after hisfather The Antigoneia in Epirus was probably founded by Pyrrhus in295 and named after his wife Antigone

67 EVanrsquot Dack ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypteptolemaiquerdquo esp pp 21ndash22 Most epistatai are minor local officialsand none is earlier than 223 BC

68 FGranier Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zumantiken staatsr echt and H Bengtson Die Strategic in der hellenistischenZeit have made an ambitious attempt to define Antigonid officials butthe reality remains ambiguous

69 Edward NLuttwak The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire70 Walter Lacquer ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo pp 37ndash41

NOTES TO PAGES 68ndash7271 Tarn op cit p 174 discusses his image as Pan on coins but see CF

Leon ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo pp 21ndash25 for a detaileddiscussion of a recently discovered bronze bust in a private collectionand its relationship (or lack of it) to the coin portraiture Plutarchrsquoscomment on the ugliness of Antigonus may have been based on theimages on the coins we donrsquot know what other representations ofAntigonus may have existed

72 Leon ibid p 22 The illustration does not look very terrifying to thisobserver

73 FStaehlin et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschreibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte VMilojcic and DTheocharis Demetrias I NDPapahadjis ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Ph PetsasldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Manolis AndronicosVergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities and Vergina The RoyalTombs and the Ancient City

74 Tarn op cit Chapter 8 pp 223ndash25675 The 13th Rock Edict c 256 BC JBloch Les Inscriptions drsquoAsoka E

Yamauchi ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo p 9 The mission ofthese envoys is not certain and there is no record of their arrival at anyof their western destinations nor of anything accomplished

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCESSources are preceded by abbreviations used in the text if different fromthose used in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon 9th edn OxfordUniversity Press 1973

Aelian Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia Ed Merwin Dilts Leipzig(1974)

Athenaeus Dipnosophistae Ed G Kaibel 3 vols Leipzig (1886ndash90)DS Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Ed F Vogel and

CT Fisher 6 vols Leipzig (1888ndash1906)DL Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosopborum Ed HS Long 2

vols Oxford (1964)Epicurus In C Diano Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo Ed Alfred Schoene Berlin

(1866ndash75)Frontinus Sextus Julius Frontinus Strategematon Ed G Gunderman

Leipzig (1888)FGrH other fragmentary writers in FJacoby ed Die Fragmente

der grieschischen Historiker Berlin and Leiden (1923ndash57)Justin Marcus Junius Justinus Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum

Pompei Trogi with the Prologues of Pompeius Trogus EdOtto Seel Leipzig (1935)

Livy Titus Livius Ab urbe condita libri Ed WWeissenborn andMMueller 4 vols Stuttgart (1966)

Paus Pausanias Descriptio Graeciae Ed Maria Helena Roch-Pereira 2 vols Leipzig (1973)

Pliny Plinius Historia Naturalis Ed C Mayhoff 5 vols Leipzig(1892ndash1909)

Plut Plutarchus Mor =Moralia Ed C Hubert et al 7 volsLeipzig (1925ndash78) from the Vitae Parallelae Ed K Ziegler3 vols Leipzig (1960ndash71) biographies of Aratus (Arat)Demetrius (Dem) Pelopidas (Pelop) and Pyrrhus (Pyrr)Polyaen Polyaenus Strategemata Ed E Woelfflin et alStuttgart (1970)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Polyb Polybius Historiae Ed L Dindorf and T Buettner-Wobst5 vols Stuttgart (1962ndash3)

Sextus Adver sus Mathematicos I Adversus Grammaticos Ed HEmpiricus Mutschmann Leipzig (1912) rev J Mau and KJanacek (1954)

Stobaeus Anthologium Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1855)JoannesStrabo Geograpbica Ed A Meinike 3 vols Leipzig (1877)Suidae Suidae Lexicon Ed A Adler 4 vols Leipzig (1928ndash35)

EPIGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONSInscriptiones Consilio et Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum BorussicaeG r a e c a e Editae 15 vols Berlin (1873ndash) (editio altera 1913ndash)

particularly the following volumesIG II2 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posterior es Ed J

Kirchner 4 parts (1913ndash40)IG IX part 2 Inscriptiones Tbessaliae Ed O Kern (1908)IG X part 2 Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae Ed C Edson (1972)fasc 1SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Ed P Roussel et

al Leiden (1923ndash)Syll3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn Ed W

Dittenberger 5 vols Leipzig (1915ndash24)

PAPYROLOGICAL PUBLICATIONSP Here [Herculaneum Papyri] in A Vogliano ldquoNuovi Testi Storicirdquo

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 310ndash331POxy Oxyrhncbus Papyri Ed BP Grenfell and AS Hunt London

(1898)

ABBREVIATIONS

AJAH American Journal of Ancient Histor yAJP A merican Journal of Philolog yAncW The Ancient WorldANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesBCH Bulletin de Cor respondence HelleniqueCAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCAH 72 Cambridge Ancient History vol 7 2nd ednCJ Classical JournalCPh Classical PhilologyCQ Classical QuarterlyGRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyREG Revue des Etudes GrecquesZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrusforschung und Epigraphie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

82

SECONDARY SOURCESAdams W Lindsay and Eugene N Borza eds Philip H Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage Washington DC (1982)Adams WL ldquoAntipater and Cassander Generalship on Restricted Resources

in the Fourth Centuryrdquo AncW 10 (1984) 79ndash88Adcock F ldquoGreek and Macedonian Kingshiprdquo Proceedings of the British

Academy no 391953Alexander John A ldquoCassandreia During the Macedonian Period An

Epigraphical Commentaryrdquo in Ancient Macedonia Papers read at theFirst International Symposium held in Thessaloniki 26ndash29 August 1968pp 127ndash46 Basil Laourdas and Ch Makaronas eds Thessaloniki Institutefor Balkan Studies (1970)

Andronicos Manolis Vergina The Royal Tombs and Other Antiquities Athens(1984)

ndashndash Vergina The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City Athens (1987) AnsonEdward M ldquoMacedoniarsquos Alleged Constitutionalismrdquo C80 (1985) 303ndash316

Arrighetti G ed Epicuro Opere Turin (1960)Badian Ernst ldquoA Kingrsquos Notebooksrdquo HSCP 72 (1967) 183ndash204Bakhuizen SC ldquoRenewed Investigation of Goritsa (Thessaly)rdquo Athens Annals

of Archaeology 5 (1972) 485ndash495Beloch Julius Griechische Geschichte 2nd edn 4 vols Berlin (1912ndash27)ndashndash ldquoMithresrdquo Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 54 (1926) 331ndash335Bengston H Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit 3 vols Munich (1937ndash

52)ndashndash Die Diadochen Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen Munich (1987)Billows Richard A Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic

State California (1990)Bloch JLes Inscriptions drsquoAsoka Paris (1950)Bourguet Emile Fouilles de Delphes Vol III Epigraphie fasc I Inscriptions

de Pentree du sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens Paris (1929)Brown EL ldquoAntigonus Surnamed Gonatasrdquo in Arktouros Hellenic Studies

Presented to Bernard MWKnox on the occasion of his 65th birthdaypp 299ndash307 GW Bowersock Walter Burkert and Michael CJ Putnameds New York (1979)

Buraselis Kostas Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Agais Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (AntigonosMonopthalmos Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) imAgaischen Meer und in Westkleinasien Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 Munich (1982)

Burstein Stanley M ldquoBithys Son of Cleon from Lysimacheia AReconsideration of the Date and Significance of IG II2 808rdquo CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 39ndash50

ndashndash ldquoArsinoeuml II Philadelphus A Revisionist Viewrdquo in Philip II Alexander theGreat and the Macedonian Heritage WL Adams and EN Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 197ndash212

Cary M A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 2nd edn London (1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

Carney ED ldquoArsinoeuml Before She Was Philadelphiardquo Ancient History Bulletin 8 (1994)123ndash131

Chambers M ldquoThe First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatasrdquo AJP 75 (1954)385ndash394

Ciocolo Sandrina ldquoEnigmi dellrsquoNoos Antigono II Gonata in Plutarcordquo StudiEllenistici 48 (1984) 135ndash190

Cohen GM ldquoThe Marriage of Lysimachus and Nicaeardquo Historia 22 (1973)354ndash356

ndashndash ldquoThe Diadochoi and the New Monarchiesrdquo Athenaeum 52 (1974) 177ndash179

Diano C Letters di Epicuro e dei suoi Florence (1946)Dinsmoor WB ldquoThe Archonship of Pytharatosrdquo Hesperia 23 (1954) 284ndash

316Dow Sterling ldquoThrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaionrdquo GRBS 20 (1979) 331ndash

345Edson Ch F ldquoThe Antigonids Heracles and Beroeardquo Harvard Classical

Studies XLV (1934) 213ndash246Errington R Malcolm ldquoThe Nature of the Macedonian State Under the

Monarchyrdquo Chiron 8 (1978) 77ndash133ndashndash A History of Macedonia Trans Catharine Errington California (1990)Ferguson WS Hellenistic Athens London (1911)ndashndash ldquoLachares and Demetrius Poliorcetesrdquo CPh (1929) Indash31ndashndash ldquoPolyeuktos and the Soteriardquo ASP 55 (1934) 318ndash336Fine JVA ldquoThe Antigonidsrdquo The Greek Political Experience Studies in

Honor of WKPrentice Princeton (1941)Flaceliegravere R Les Aitoliens a Delphes Contribution a Irsquohistoir e de la Gregravece

centrale au IIIe siecle av JC Bibliographic des Ecoles fransaises drsquoAtheneset de Rome CXLIII Paris (1937)

Foraboschi Daniele Onomasticon Alterum Papyrologicum Supplemento alNamenhuch diE Preisigke Milan (1967)

Gabbert J ldquoPragmatic Democracy in Hellenistic Athensrdquo AncW 13 (1986)29ndash33

ndashndash ldquoThe Anarchic Dating of the Chremonidean Warrdquo C 82 (1987) 230ndash235ndashndash ldquoThe Career of Olympiodorus of Athens (ca340-270 BC)rdquo AncW 27

(1996) 59ndash66Gauthier Philippe ldquoLa Reunification drsquoAthenes en 281 et les deux archontes

Niciasrdquo REG 92 (1979) 348ndash399Geyer F ldquoEuboia in den Wirren der Diadochenzeitrdquo Philologus 39 (1930)

175ndash191Golan David ldquoAratus Policy Between Sicyon and Argos An Attempt at Greek

Unityrdquo R storia antichita 3 (1973) 59ndash70Granier Friedrich Die Makedonische Heeresversammlung ein Beitrag zum

antiken staatsr echt Miinchener Beitraumlge zur Papyrusforschung undantiken r echtsgeschichte vol 13 Munich (1931)

Green Peter Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the HellenisticAge California (1990)

Griffith GT The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Cambridge (1935)Gruen ES The Hellenistic World and the Romans 2 vols California (1984)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

Habicht Christian Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v ChrVestigia Beitrdge zur Allen Geschichte 30 Munich (1979)

Hammond NGL The Macedonian State Origins Institutions and History Oxford (1990)ndashndash and FWWalbank A History of Macedonia vol III 336ndash167 BC Oxford (1988)Heinen Heinz ldquoUntersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts

v Chrrdquo Historia Einzelschriften vol 20 Wiesbaden (1972)Herzog Rudolf and Gunther KlaiienbampchAsylieurkunden aus Kos

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinNos 6 and I (1952)

Hunt AS ed The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XVII London Egypt ExplorationSociety (1927)

Jacoby Felix ed Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin andLeiden (1923ndash1957)

Jones Christopher P ldquoThe Decree of Ilion in Honor of a King AntiochusrdquoGRBS 34 (1993) 73ndash92

Klose Peter Die volker rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenweltin der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v Chr Munchener Beitrdge zurPapyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte vol 64 Munich (1972)

Lacquer Walter ldquoEurope The Specter of Finlandizationrdquo Commentar y(December 1977) 37ndash41

Larson JAO Greek Federal States Oxford (1968)LeBohec Sylvie ldquoLes epistates des rois antigonidesrdquo Ktema 11 (1986) 281ndash

288LeGrand E ldquoInscriptions de Trezenerdquo BCH 17 (1893) 84ndash121Leon CF ldquoAntigonos Gonatas Rediscoveredrdquo AncW 20 (1989) 21ndash25Luttwak Edward N The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire Baltimore

(1976)McCredie James R ldquoFortified Military Camps in Atticardquo Hesperia Supp XI

(1966)McCurdy Grace Hellenistic Queens Baltimore (1932)Mandel J ldquoA propos drsquoune dynastic de tyrans a Argos (III siecle avant JC)rdquo

Athenaeum 57 (1979) 293ndash307Manni E ldquoDue battaglie di Andrordquo Athenaeum 30 (1952) 182ndash190ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica Xrdquo Athenaeum 40 (1962) 315ndash324ndashndash ldquoNote di Cronologia Ellenistica XIrdquo Athenaeum 46 (1968) 112ndash121Mathisen Ralph W ldquoMemnon of Herakleia on Antigonos Gonatas 280ndash277

BCrdquo AncW1 (1978) 71ndash74ndashndash ldquoAntigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280ndash270

BCrdquo ANSMN 26 (1981) 79ndash124Meritt Benjamin D ldquoAthenian Archons 3476-48I BCrdquo Historia 26 (1977)

161ndash191Milojcic V ldquoBericht iiber die deutschen archaologischen Ausgrabungen in

Thessalien 1973rdquo Archaiologika Analekta eks Athenon I (1974) 43ndash75ndashndash and DTheocharis Demetrias IBeitrdge zur ur-und fruhgeschichtlichen

Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes vol 12 Bonn (1976)Momigliano A ldquoA New Date for the Battle of Andros A Discussionrdquo CQ 44

(1950) 107ndash116Nachtergael G Les Galates en Gregravece et les Soteria de Delphes Recherches

drsquobistoir e et drsquoepigraphie kellenistiques Brussels (1977)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Oikonomides AN ldquoOpron and the Sea-Battle of Androsrdquo Zeitschrift Fur PapyrologieUnd Epigraphik 56 (1984) 151ndash152

Orth Wolfgang Korsquoniglicher Machtanspmch und stddtische FreiheitUntersuchungen zu denpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den erstenSeleukidenherrschen (Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II) und denStadten des westlichen Kleinasiens (Miinchener Beitraumlge zurPapyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte number 71) Munich(1977)

Osborne Michael J ldquoKallias Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 BCrdquoZPE 35 (1979) 181ndash194

ndashndash ldquoThe Chronology of Athens in the Mid-Third Century BCrdquo ZPE 78 (1989)209ndash242

Panagos Ch Th Le Piree Trans Pierre Gerardat Athens (1968)Papahadjis ND ldquoThe Palace of Macedonian Kings in Demetriasrdquo Thessalika

I (1958) 16ndash26 (in Greek with resume in English)Petrakos Basil ldquoNeai Pegai peri tou Chremonideiou polemourdquo Arcbaiologikon

Deltikon 22A (1967) 38ndash52Petsas Ph M ldquoPella the Capital of the Macedonian Kingsrdquo Athene 23 3

(1962) 13ndash16 23 4 71ndash73Porter WH ldquoAratus of Sicyon and King Antigonos Gonatasrdquo Hermathena

45 (1930) 293ndash311Pouilloux Jean Laforteresse de Rhamnonte Paris (1954)Reger Cary ldquoThe Date of the Battle of Kosrdquo AJAH 10 (1985) [1993] 155ndash177Rice EE The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphia Oxford (1983)Robert J and Robert L ldquoBulletin Epigraphiquerdquo REG 64 (1951) 119ndash126de Sanctis Gaetano ldquo11 dominio macedonico nel Pireordquo Rivista di Filologia

e drsquoistruzione classica (1927) 480ndash500Sarikakis Theodore Chr ldquoThe Athenian Generals in Hellenistic Timesrdquo (in

Greek) Athena 57 (1953) 242ndash304Sartori F ldquoLrsquoAteniese Cremonide alia corte dei Tolomeirdquo Ricerche Storiche

ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo 3 vols Naples (1970)vol 1 445ndash456

Schoch Paul Prosopographie der militdrischen und politischen Funktionareim bellenistischen Makedonien (323-168 v Chr) Diss Basel (1919)

Seibert J Historische Beitraumlge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen inhellenistischer Zeit Historia Einzelschriften vol 40 Wiesbaden (1967)129ndash131

Shear T Leslie Jr ldquoKallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BCrdquoHesperia Suppl XVII Princeton (1978)

Simpson RM ZAntigonus the One-Eyed and the Greeksrdquo Historia 8 (1959)385ndash409

Staehlin F et al Pagasai und Demetrias Beschr eibung der Reste undStadtgeschichte Berlin (1934)

Tarn WW Antigonos Gonatas Oxford (1913)ndashndash The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of

Rome Cambridge (1928) III ldquoThe New Hellenistic Kingdomsrdquo pp 75ndash108 VIldquoMacedonia and Greecerdquo pp 197ndash223 and XXII ldquoThe Struggle of Egypt AgainstSyria and Macedoniardquo pp 699ndash731

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

Vanrsquot Dack E ldquoRecherches sur les institutions de village en Egypte ptolemaiquerdquoStudia Hellenistica I Ptolemaica Louvain (1951) 5ndash38

Walbank RW Aratos of Sicyon London (1933)ndashndash A Historical Commentary on Poly bins 2 vols Oxford (1957ndash67)ndashndash ldquoSea-power and the Antigonidsrdquo in Philip II Alexander the Great and

the Macedonian Heritage WLindsay Adams and Eugene N Borza edsWashington DC (1982) pp 213ndash236

ndashndash et al The Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edn vol VII Part I ldquoTheHellenistic Worldrdquo Cambridge (1984)

Will Edouard Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av JC) 2vols 2nd edn (1979ndash82)

Yamauchi E ldquoHellenistic Bactria and Buddhismrdquo Humanitas 183 (1995)5ndash10

87

Achaean League 23 33 36ndash37 4356 58

Acrocorinth 57Aegae 30 68ndash69Aetolian League 33 43Aetolians 16 43 58Alexander (s Craterus) 35ndash36 39ndash

40 54ndash56 64 70Alexandria 69Ameinias 27 31 35ndash36 55 59Amphipolis 60Andros 17Andros (naval battle) 54 57Antigoneia (city) 60 78 n 66Antigoneia (festival) 54Antigonus I 3 6 9 14 46Antigonus III Doson 38 58 61ndash63Antiochus I 3 25Antiochus II 53ndash54Antipater 1Aratus (of Sicyon) 36 41 43 54ndash58

63Aratus of Soli (poet) 68ndash69 75 n27Arcesilaus 4 52Areus 30 41 47ndash48Argos 31 33 40ndash41 46 56 63Army 59Arsinoeuml 9 21 26 51Artemidoms 18Asoka 70Athens 6 8ndash13 15 17ndash19 25ndash27

33 37 40 46ndash48 50ndash52 56 5863 69

Augustus 52 67

Bion 4ndash5Bithynia 56

Boeotia 14

Cassander 3 7ndash12 29Cassandreia 18 21 26ndash27 60Ceraunus (Ptolemy) 22ndash23 26Chalcis 9 16 19 25 33 35 39 54Chremonidean War 37 39 41 43 45ndash

53 64 70Chremonides 46ndash47 51Cleanthes 4 70Cleonymus 14 27 30 37Coins 68Corinth 9 16 19 21 25 31 33

35ndash36 46ndash47 54ndash58 68Corupedium (battle) 22Cos 60Cos (naval battle) 52ndash53 57 68Craterus 3 21 25 35 42 55 59 63Crates 18

Deidameia 6 13Delos 54 75 n27Demetrias 15ndash17 19 21 25 33 40 55

68ndash69Demetrius I (Poliorcetes) father I

3 5 8ndash21 28 46 51ndash52 64 6671

Demetrius II (son) 4 28 38 48 5658 60 61ndash63

Demetrius of Phaleron 8 11Demetrius the Fair 63Demochares 8 16ndash19

Eleusis 10 13 18ndash19 23 33 38Elis 33 35 42Epicurus 11 20Epidaurus 33 37 58

INDEX

INDEX

88

epimeletes 61Epirus 29 31 48epistates 61Eretria 5 27 33 35 39 54Euphantos 4

Finland 65Fleet 16 21 27 45 47 55 57

Garrisons 33 35ndash40 58Gauls 26ndash30 37 47Gonatas 1

Halkyoneus 4 5 15 31 70Hegemony 33 4 46 65Heracleides 21 24ndash25 38Heracleitus 10 27 38 56 59 64Hierocles 24 38 59Hieronymus 14 69Hydra 37

Ipsus 6 9ndash10

Kallias 8 10 16ndash18

Lachares 11ndash12Lamia (hetaira) 6 9Lysimacheia 5 27 38 68Lysimachus 9ndash14 16ndash22 25ndash26

Macedonia 11 13 15ndash20 22ndash23 26ndash30 33 45 56 59 61 65ndash66

Megalopolis 33 42 46Megara 9 33 37 46 58Menedemos 4 27 38ndash39Mercenaries 10 17 24 27 29 36

45 47 56 59Museum Hill (garrison) 12 15 17ndash18

23ndash24 40 51

Nicomedes 56

Officials 59ndash60Olympiodorus 8ndash13 16 18ndash19 24ndash25

Pan 68Paneia (festival) 57 68Patroclus 37 47ndash50 52 70Peithidemos 46Pella 16 60 68ndash69

Peloponnesus 13 19 30 40ndash41Pericles 50Persaios 4 5 36 57Phaidros 8 12 15ndash18Phila (mother of Antigonus) I 6 9 13

15 18 21Phila (wife of Antigonus) 4 28Philip V 62ndash63Philippi 60Philippides 9ndash10 19ndash20 24Philochorus 51philosophy 4ndash6 64 70Piraeus 11ndash13 15ndash19 21 24 27

33 37ndash38 40 55Pirates 27ndash28Ptolemy I (Soter) 3 9ndash10 13 16ndash

18 21Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 24 27

36 45ndash47 49ndash52 55 57ndash58Pyrrhus 3 6 14 16 18ndash23 29ndash31 41

Rhamnous 13 25 33 38 40Rhodes (seige of) 6Romans 39 65 67 77 n47

Salamis 33 38Second Syrian War 46Seleucus 3 1 9 16 19 21 69Sicyon 43 46 55ndash56Sostratos 18Soteria (festival) 59Sparta 30 41 42 46ndash48 50stoic philosophy 5 70strategos 61Stratocles 8Stratonike (sister of Antigonus) 1 9

13 54Stratonikeia (festival) 54Strombichos 23ndash24 74 n 16Sunium 25 33 38 40 47

Thebes 14 46Thessaloniki 60 61Troezen 33 36 40 46 58Tyrants 23 42

Vergina 68ndash69 76 n 28

Zeno 4 5 47 70Zenon 17

• Book Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Antigonid kings of Macedonia
• Select chronology
• THE EARLY YEARS
• THE APPRENTICE KING
• ANARCHY AND RECOVERY
• THE STRUGGLE WITH PYRRHUS
• THE GREEK HEGEMONY
• THECHREMONIDEANWAR
• AN OLD MANS TROUBLES
• THE NATURE OF THE MONARCHY
• THE MAN AND THE KING
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index