Owner of the Tomb of Vergina still questioned

Historical events are gladly twisted and turned to make an interesting or commercially profitable story. Some or even many of these tales can stay alive for years, even centuries. 

The most absurd theory is about Alexander being buried in Macedonia and not in Egypt. The other recurring discussion is about the Tomb in Vergina that has been attributed to Philip II, Alexander’s father, by Manolis Andronicos in 1977 (see: Vergina, The Royal Tombs by Manolis Andronicos).

[Picture Credit: A. Bartsiokas]

The next best candidate for the Tomb of Vergina is Philip III Arrhideus, as discussed in my post Questioning the Tomb of King Philip II, father of Alexander the Great, in November 2009, and Philip’s Tomb at Vergina, is it or is it not in January 2016. This last one is based on studies by Antonis Bartsiokas, Democritus, University of Thrace, Komotini, who worked on the Vergina tombs. 

Only recently, a sacred purple-dyed cotton chiton of Alexander has been discovered in the golden larnax of Tomb II, thought to be Philip’s. 

This garment is most remarkable because cotton was first introduced to the Macedonians when they reached India in 327 BC. According to Antonis Bartsiokas, the tunic matches the description of a ceremonial outfit, a sarapis, as worn by King Darius and later adopted by Alexander. A closer analysis revealed the presence of huntite, a bright white mineral uncommon in Greece but used in ancient Persia, between the layers of cotton. These white stripes are also seen in Alexander’s outfit as depicted in the fresco above the entrance door of what is supposedly Philip’s tomb. This, the author says, strengthens his theory that this sarapis is “the same one that Alexander would have worn in official ceremonies”. 

[Picture Credit: A. Bartsiokas]

Why this fabric suddenly appears inside the larnax is puzzling, to say the least, since the cremated bones and a large gold wreath of oak leaves and acorns were removed years ago.

Why the chiton is linked to the image of a juvenile Alexander in the fresco of the tomb is not exactly in line with Alexander as King of Persia wearing a cotton chiton with traces of huntite.

And why can we be sure this sarapis is the one Alexander wore and not Philip III Arrhideus, as he too became King of Kings? 

Presently, Antonis Bartsiokas also states “that many objects found in Tomb II actually belonged to Alexander the Great,” including a golden diadem, a scepter, and the earlier mentioned oak wreath. Here, Philip II is not even mentioned! This would imply that Andronicos had it all wrong. Of course, this is history in the making, and new discoveries and interpretations surface time and again. 

We’ll see…

“To the strongest”

“To the strongest” are the last words Alexander pronounced on his deathbed in Babylon when pressed to name his successor. 

His Companions and generals were obviously panicking at the thought of being left behind so many miles away from Macedonia without their king to guide them. They desperately needed him. 

Ever since he became king in 336 BC Alexander had shown his commanders the way and led his men by example. He certainly did not expect to die at the age of 33 and not in his bed. How could he have foreseen to be incapacitated and unable to be his own self? 

The only person who had always been at his side and enjoyed his full confidence had died the previous year. Hephaistion had been officially appointed as his Chiliarch, his second in command. The sudden death of his dearest friend left him in total disarray and maddened by grief. He was truly alone at a time when he had to make the hardest decision of his life and elect a successor. “Who, Alexander? Tell us who!” are the words Oliver Stone put in the mouth of Ptolemy. How appropriate! 

“To the strongest” has often been understood as a weak and evasive statement, although, in reality, Alexander’s last words are one final proof of his genius! Had he not been so much afflicted by his illness and impaired by the high fever, he would have found the strength to elaborate a solution to the Succession with his close Companions. He would likely have appointed Perdiccas. Even so, Alexander’s decision may have lost its power two years onward, and the commanders would have taken the matter into their own hands anyway.

Of course, everyone around the king’s deathbed still hoped to be appointed and hear his name called out. However, matters were not as straightforward as one might think. On the one hand, he had to name an heir since, as King, he needed a successor, and on the other hand, as commander in chief of his army, he had to appoint a capable military leader. 

At this point, his most experienced generals were Craterus and Perdiccas. Yet, Craterus was in Cilicia taking 10,000 veterans back to Macedonia with Alexander’s instructions to replace Antipater as Regent in Pella. Perdiccas was in Babylon and took the king’s succession into his hands. 

Roxane was pregnant, but the child had not been born yet, and there was no guarantee it would be a boy. Alexander had never recognized Heracles, his son by Barsine. In any case, Roxane’s son and Heracles were too young to rule, and the generals would have to choose a Regent pending their coming of age. The next best option was to push Arrhideus forward. He was Alexander’s simple-minded half-brother and not capable of becoming the de facto ruler. As a result, Perdiccas was elected Regent at the Partition of Babylon. 

This implied, however, that he would rule over Alexander’s Companions and generals. Perdiccas’ success was short-lived, though, and in 321 BC he was sidelined at Triparadeisus as the commanders decided to divide the kingdom among themselves. When Perdiccas escorted Alexander’s remains to be buried in Macedonia, Ptolemy hijacked the mummified body and took it to Egypt. In a desperate attempt to recover his king’s remains, Perdiccas failed totally to march his men across the Nile. His losses were so excessive that his soldiers revolted and killed him. 

These were uncertain times for all the parties involved in the Succession Wars. They all had the ambition to rule over Alexander’s Empire and felt equally qualified to do so, but none shared Alexander’s vision. Ultimately, they eliminated each other until the empire was divided between Ptolemy, Seleucos, Antigonus, and Cassander (see: Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander’s Empire by Robin Waterfield).

None of the great men who fought alongside Alexander for almost twelve years emerged as the strongest. They all had learned a lot, but none could come close to Alexander’s charisma and exceptional genius.

Lysimachos in the wake of Alexander – Part II

 [continued from Lysimachos in the wake of Alexander - Part I]

Skipping the many details and intertwined relationships, let us pick up the story when Seleucos added his forces to those of Lysimachos and his allies to fight the elderly Antigonus Monophthalmus and his son Demetrios Poliorcetes. The battle took place in 301 BC at Ipsus and ended with Antigonus’ defeat and death. The victors subsequently divided his territory among them. Lysimachos acquired a significant share with Lydia, Ionia, and Phrygia, including the entire north coast of Asia Minor. Seleucos received Syria, and Cassander was now secure in Macedonia and Greece. 

Until then, Antigonus Monophthalmus had been the most successful among the generals in recreating Alexander’s empire. His son Demetrios attempted to follow in his father’s footsteps, but he lacked a broader view. 

Around that time, Nicaea died, and Lysimachos honored her by naming a city in Asia Minor after her, modern Iznik in Turkey. 

As Seleucos was growing ever more powerful, Lysimachos thought it wise to seek the support of Ptolemy. Around 300 BC, he elected to marry Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, and his mistress Berenice. Amastris, as said above, stepped back and divorced herself from Lysimachos, moving back to Herakleia Pontus. 

Although this marriage of Lysimachos was not a happy one, Arsinoe stayed with her husband till his death. She bore him three sons: Ptolemy I Epigonos, Lysimachos, and Philip. Her jealousy, however, incited her to convince her husband to kill his oldest son and heir, Agathocles (from his marriage to Nicaea), based on treason. The murder happened in 284 BC despite the young man successfully leading his father’s army in combat. Although he was only in his early thirties, his men loved him much. 

Meanwhile, Cassander died in 297 BC. His sons were more interested in fighting each other for power than ruling the country. Macedonia eventually fell into the hands of Demetrios. So, in 287 BC, Lysimachos agreed to fight alongside Pyrrhus to drive Demetrios out of Macedonia. They successfully ruled the country jointly until Lysimachos broke up with Pyrrhus and seized Macedonia for himself. 

Lysimachos’ greed and thirst for power equaled that of the other generals, now kings in their realms. The fighting was not over yet. 

Seleucos, in 282 BC, broke his alliance with Lysimachos as he attempted to take his territory in Asia Minor. The final clash happened in Lydia at Corupedium in 281 BC. It ended with the death of Lysimachos. By then, the King of Thracia must have been in his late 70s. He had lived a life of almost continuous and repeated battles, inspired by the greatest conqueror of all times, Alexander the Great. 

Like the other new self-proclaimed kings, Lysimachos had minted his own coins. However, he did not follow them by stamping his personal image on these coins but kept using the effigy of Alexander instead. Could that be seen as a late posthumous homage and tribute to his boyhood friend? 

Lysimachos is also being honored as a friend and benefactor of Samothrace. He received the title of Lysimachos Euergetes as inscribed on the altar erected in his honor and used during annual festivals. A stele found on the island reads a dedication of King Lysimachos from between 288 and 281 BC. Based on the surviving first fifteen lines, Lysimachos was honored for restoring sacred lands on the mainland initially granted to Samothrace by either Philip II or Alexander the Great or by Philip Arrhidaeus III and Alexander IV. There were boundary stones for said sacred land near Alexandroupolis in Greece. 

Money was never an issue throughout all those years of bickering, conniving, and fighting. Lysimachos, like all the other generals, had cashed his share of Alexander’s fortune. In his case, it was a mere 9,000 talents in silver and gold, roughly worth several billion in today’s value. The money was safely kept on the Acropolis of Pergamon. However, when Attalus III gave the city to Rome in 133 BC, the entire treasure (not limited to Lysimachos’ share) fell into Roman hands. This fortune contributed largely to the rise of the Roman Empire – but that is another story.

Traces of Philip III Arrhidaeus in Egypt

As strange as it may seem, archaeologists have discovered several inscriptions praising Pharaoh Arrhideus/Philip III and the crocodile god of the Nile, Sobek.

Since Alexander the Great had not made any arrangements for his succession, the Macedonian army elected his half-brother to be their new king. As we know, the succession of Alexander led to many years of lengthy bickering and fights among his generals, the Diadochi, turning into hopeless wars that lasted for nearly forty years.

Arrhideus/Philip III was only king in name since he was retarded and hence unfit to rule Alexander’s huge empire. Not much literature or artwork is known, and traces of his “rule” are scant.

Strangely enough, a relief showing the face of Pharaoh Arrhideus/Philip III has been discovered at the unusual double temple of  Kom Ombo dedicated to the god Sobek, the god of fertility, and the falcon god Haroeris. The archaeologists also found his name inscribed in hieroglyphs on an 83 x 55 cm slab.

Although the temple is resting on a much older structure, the remains we know today, with its twin entrances and symmetrical layout was, probably started by Ptolemy VI. The Ptolemys remained present over the centuries as we also find a fine relief of Ptolemy XII, the father of the famous Cleopatra VII.

Another trace of Arrhideus/Philip III is found in the Temple of Amun at Karnak. Besides a peristyle court of Thutmosis III, it contains a barque sanctuary filled with his granite naos. This could be the picture Olaf Kaper showed during his lecture in 2010 (see: Alexander the Great in Egypt. Lecture of 24 November 2010).

The island of Samothrace, finally, proudly displays a joint dedication of Arrhideus/Philip III and Alexander IV. It was part of a marble Doric building that carried the inscription “King Philip [and] Alexander to the Great Gods,” a confirmation that both the son of Alexander the Great and his half-brother “officially” ruled on equal terms (see: A Dedication of Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV).

[Top picture: Philip III as pharaoh in Karnak is from Wikipedia]

[Bottom picture: Sanctuary of Philip III from Egypt Museum]

A Dedication of Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV

Strolling through the temporary exhibition about Samothrace at the New Acropolis Museum in Athens, I was surprised to find two odd-looking objects labeled as Dedications of Philip III and Alexander IV.

When Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, there was no heir to the throne of the King of Asia, and his generals had a rough time agreeing on a successor. Alexander’s son with Roxane had not been born yet, and his earlier son with Barsine was never recognized by Alexander. After many flaring discussions, it was decided that Alexander’s simple-minded half-brother Arrhidaeus would share the throne with Roxane’s baby boy under the respective names of Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV. Neither was to rule as king, at least not at this very early stage.

Here at the museum, this is the first time I have seen artifacts tied to both kings, and I wonder whether these are the only ones. The Dedication dates from between 323, when their co-kingship was implemented, and 317 BC, the year in which Philip III Arrhidaeus was brutally murdered by Olympias.

Samothrace is, of course, the place where Philip II and Olympias, Alexander’s parents, met during an initiation ceremony to the sacred rites of the most secret Mysteries, but why is this island so important that even young Alexander IV and his simple-minded uncle honor it with a dedication of their own?

According to Diodorus, initiation at the Sanctuary of the Great Gods promised an opportunity to “become a better and more pious person.” Divine forces of earth, sky, and sea played a fundamental role in the mysteries that shrouded (and are still shrouding) the island. From as early as the 7^th century BC all the way down to the 4^th century AD, the Sanctuary provided insight into spiritual, political, and cultural life. The intense activity is shown through the host of monuments erected here since they are all set in selective locations throughout the landscape to enhance the initiates’ experience.

     

 

The marble Doric building where the Dedication of Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV was found would have been the first significant construction the visitor saw when entering the Sanctuary. It stood nine meters high and welcomed the pilgrims with the dedicatory inscription reading “King Philip [and] Alexander to the Great Gods,” a proof – if needed – that both kings ruled equally. I did not find the inscription at the museum; only a fragment of a monumental eagle’s head and a wing bit from the two large eagles that once adorned the construction, probably as acroteria. The Dedication monument was the work of local craftsmen who used two different kinds of marble. For the façade, which counted six columns, Pentelic marble from Attica had the preference, while the sides and back marble came from the nearby island of Thasos, as was common elsewhere in Samothrace. The open chamber is said to have preserved its mosaic floor with a central panel unusually made of rhomboid marble tesserae, which I have not seen at the museum but may still be in situ.

The construction of such a significant monument by the two kings or whoever acted on their behalf was meant to reinforce their rightful succession to Alexander the Great. Using Pentelic marble for its façade was an iconic reference to other great monuments in Athens and to Athenian dedications in other locations. To the visitors of those days, this Dedication would also be seen as Macedonia’s claim to power over mainland Greece.

After this exciting discovery, I spent more time investigating the other artifacts to learn more about Samothrace. The most valuable tools are an excellent reconstruction of the site and a clear map of all the pertaining buildings.

I find another intriguing testimony of Alexander’s heritage in one of the showcases: a tiny gold applique of a lion of Achaemenid origin, once inlaid with precious stones. It has been dated to the 4^th century BC and may be a trophy one of his soldiers brought back from Persia.

There is also the top part of a stele containing a dedication of King Lysimachos of Thrace from between 288 and 281 BC. Based on the surviving first fifteen lines, Lysimachos is honored for restoring sacred lands on the mainland initially granted to Samothrace by either Philip II and Alexander the Great or Philip Arrhidaeus III and Alexander IV. Boundary stones for said sacred land have been found near Alexandroupolis in Greece. Lysimachos is also honored as a friend and benefactor of Samothrace, hence his title of Lysimachus Euergetes as inscribed on the altar erected in his honor and used during annual festivals.

Just a few years later, between 285 and 281 BC, Ptolemy II built a Propylon, one of the most lavishly decorated entrance buildings from Hellenistic times. This must have been an impressive monument since the metopes were an elegant succession of alternating 100 rosettes and 104 garlanded bucrania or ox skulls. It makes you wonder about the richness of the other details.

To remain with the Ptolemaic dynasty, Arsinoe II built a splendid Rotunda at the Sanctuary. It is not clear, however, whether this Rotunda was made while she was married to Lysimachos of Thrace, mentioned above, and her first husband (288-281 BC) or after she became the wife of her brother Ptolemy II, her third husband (273-270 BC). The meaning of the Dedication thus varies accordingly. If the Rotunda was built during her marriage with Lysimachos, it might stand for the alliance of Egypt with Thrace and the northern Aegean. If erected when she married her brother, it could mean to thank Samothrace for sheltering her after fleeing from her second husband, Ptolemy Keraunas. This Rotunda was also decorated with reliefs of alternating rosettes and bucrania, a favorite theme. A lovely rosette and a strange-looking, round and flat tile from the roof are exhibited here.

Much more recent is the Dedication to the Great Gods of Samothrace by the Thessalian League from 170-140 BC. It tells us that their embassy was led by Damothoinos, son of Leontomenes and a member of a prominent family from Pherae; he was the leader of the league in 161/160 BC. This Dedication shows the importance of the Thessalian League after being freed from Macedonian rule.

The best-known sculpture from Samothrace is the famous Nike, now at the Louvre and recently restored and cleaned for the pleasure of our eyes! It has been dated to the 2^nd century BC and was a gift from the people of Rhodes to thank the gods who protected seafarers and granted them victory in war, maybe in commemoration of the Battle of Myonnissos or the victory over Antiochus III at Side in 190 BC.

Yet the Athens exhibition shows another Nike statue, less flashy than this famous one, which is said to be one of four that stood at each corner of the Hieron built between 325 and 150 BC.

Another piece that caught my attention was this lovely frieze of dancing girls. It was found in an imposing building of 34x23 meters that is neither a temenos nor a propylon and thus has been labeled as the Hall of Choral Dancers after the frieze that was discovered inside. Dating from the middle of the 4^th century BC, this Hall is the first marble structure of the Sanctuary, maybe even the oldest and the largest one. The frieze we see here is only a small section of the continuous row of hundreds of dancing maidens running around the entire building. Besides the dancing figures, female musicians also accompanied the long procession. The wealth exposed in this monument leads experts to believe that it was commissioned by an influential donor and that the name of Philip II, Alexander’s father, has fallen since it was here that he met Queen Olympias.

Because of Philip’s and Olympia’s early presence and the splendid monumental dedications made during the later Hellenistic period, it is generally believed that Samothrace played a crucial role in Macedonia’s legacy. I would even add a pivotal role to Alexander’s legacy!

Philip’s tomb at Vergina, is it or is it not?

How often are we going to solve and refute the many theories that circulate about the owner of the bones contained inside the gold larnax at Vergina? Can we make sure they are those of Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, or not?

The latest conclusions were drawn in May 2015 but as explained in my article Inconclusive Analysis of Philip’s Tomb at Vergina they are far from being watertight. Before that, in 2009, Eugene Borza, Professor Emeritus of Ancient History, The Pennsylvania State University, wanted to prove that Tomb II was that of Alexander the Great (see: Questioning the Tomb of King Philip II, father of Alexander the Great), so what’s new?

[Picture from the International Business Times]

A more recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in August 2015 states that Philip is to be found in Tomb I and not in Tomb II as generally accepted till now – a theory based on Philip’s leg wounds.

The tumulus of Vergina contains in fact three Tombs, but only two are of particular interest. Tomb I contains the non-cremated remains of a man, a woman, and those of a newborn baby. Tomb II contains the remains of a man and a woman inside two gold larnakes with an array of armory and grave goods. Because of this content, but also the fact that according to history Philip had been cremated as common in Macedonia, led to conclude that this tomb was Philip’s.

Researchers now have done a bone examination of both tombs. In Tomb I it has been established that the baby was 41-44 weeks old, either newborn or still unborn; the woman was around 18 years old, being the age given by historians for Cleopatra, Philip’s last wife; the male skeleton was judged to belong to a 45 old (which matches Philip’s age) who suffered from a severe knee wound received three years before his death. This latest information can be tied to Philip’s last injury during his campaign against the Scythians. The leg bones contained in this tomb show a stiffened knee joint, knee ankylosis as we would diagnose today, together with a bone hole caused by a lance, which matches King Philip’s lameness.

The skeleton in Tomb II bears no leg injury and is therefore attributed to Philip II Arrhideus, Alexander’s half-brother and successor as co-king together with Alexander IV, the son of Alexander the Great and Roxane born after Alexander’s death.

The above story has appeared in the International Business Times but does unfortunately not tell us how far the remains in Tomb II do indeed match up with Philip III Arrhideus and does not explain the presence of a long and a short greave, for instance. It only mentions that the skull found there does not belong to King Philip (a rather obvious remark in the entire context).

The article is based on an interview with Antonis Bartsiokas, Democritus University of Thracia, Komotini, who has been working on the identification of the Vergina tombs for over 15 years. He seems to be an authority, so why do I still have my doubts? I find it a rather shortcut to state that “Philip was assassinated with his wife Cleopatra and newborn child” since Cleopatra and her child were murdered by Olympias after her husband had been killed, although we don’t know how long afterward but certainly not together with him. Another point that raises questions is that he is accepting that Philip II was wounded during his fight against the Scythians but why does it take priority over his burial according to Macedonian rites where the body was cremated. Alexander may have been in a hurry to bury his father but certainly not to the extent to go against old Macedonian tradition – I’m sure the entire army would have revolted. So, how conclusive can such an analysis be?

What if … Alexander had died a few months earlier, before Craterus left with his veterans for Macedonia?

Another interesting point of view for after Hephaistion died one year earlier, Craterus became Alexander’s second-in-command. Craterus was now the most powerful man after Alexander, at least in the east, for Antipater still ruled undisturbed over Macedonia and Greece.

Well, maybe Craterus could have kept his high position and could have shaped a new ruling system, although the empire still needed a king. Roxane’s pregnancy may not yet have been established, in which case the more or less obvious appointment of Arrhidaeus/PhilipIII would have materialized. But simple-minded as he was, he too would need a regent to rule in his place. Would the generals present at Babylon have accepted Craterus’ superiority? Maybe in the immediate future but for the next 18 years till Alexander IV was old enough to be king?

It does not sound very probable, for meanwhile, Arrhidaeus/Philip III would have picked up momentum together with his wife, the ambitious Adea/Eurydice. The ambition of the generals and their faithful troops is likely to have demanded their share pending the coming of age of Alexander IV. The main difference with what really happened is that Craterus would have been in Babylon with his 10,000 veterans to reinforce the local troops. He had a strong case against Antipater since he had the majority of the troops on his side. This situation could have made the situation more manageable and appeased possible opposition – at least for a while.

On the other hand, however, Craterus could have gained the support of Olympias, but whether that was enough to stop Cassander from working out his devilish plans after Antipater’s death in 319 BC depended entirely on the replacement Craterus had in mind. Polyperchon seems to be an excellent candidate since Alexander himself had sent him along with Craterus in the first place, should anything happen to him, Polyperchon, a highly skilled diplomat, was to take over. Craterus was obviously aware of these plans and could have acted accordingly.

We know that Polyperchon, in the end, played a foul game as he was responsible for the murder of  Heracles and his mother, Barsine. Polyperchon’s dream to rule over Greece had clashed with Cassander’s ambitions time and again, and in 310 BC, Cassander promised him peace and promotion as military governor of the Peloponnese. In exchange, the 75-year-old Polyperchon had to kill Heracles and Barsine. He accepted the deal.

What if...

“What if” is one of those questions that keeps popping up in everybody’s mind, and as I often wonder about Alexander’s life and death, I came up with several “what ifs”:

• What if … he had married before leaving for Asia and had produced a son?
• What if … Hephaistion had still been alive at the time of Alexander’s death in Babylon?
• What if … he had died a few months earlier before Craterus left with his veterans for Macedonia? 
• What if … he had died a few months later after his son with Roxane was born and Craterus had replaced Antipater in Macedonia?
• What if … he had lived a few more years to conquer western Mediterranean?
• What if … he had left his throne to his son from the Persian princess Barsine/Stateira, descended from and protected by Sisygambis?

Pure speculation, of course, but I think it could be interesting to spend some time reflecting on these theories.

First, all members of Alexander’s Bodyguard were in Babylon when he died in 323 BC: Aristonous, Leonnatus, Lysimachus, Peithon, Perdiccas, Peucestas, and Ptolemy. Other powerful men were also present, like Seleucos, one of his principal commanders over the past seven years; Nearchus, the admiral of his fleet; and Eumenes, his secretary and archivist. They all had campaigned at Alexander’s side for over a decade, and I’m confident their world vision had changed considerably since they left Macedonia. As we know, however, the main absentees were Craterus, who was still in Cilicia on his way to replace Antipater as Regent in Macedonia upon Alexander’s instructions, and Antipater himself.

Alexander had not appointed a successor. His wife, Queen Roxane, was expecting a child in a few months, but there was no guarantee this would be a boy. Alexander already had a son, Heracles, by his mistress Barsine, but no attempt was ever made to recognize him, and thus the boy had no right to the throne. The only “available” royal was Alexander’s half-brother, Arrhidaeus, an adult but simple-minded and not fit to rule by himself.

In short, the empty throne had to be occupied, and the vast empire had to be ruled. It was up to this group of faithful men to make the right decisions, although none knew what they were. Alexander had been their king and leader; how could that position be filled or replaced?

The army, according to Macedonian law, could nominate their new king, but most importantly, they were the ones who had to approve the possible candidate; without their blessing, no king could rule. Yet the army was split into three large contingents: approximately 10,000 to 15,000  troops were still in Babylon, 10,000 veterans led by Craterus were in Cilicia, and about the same number of troops were in Greece under the command of Antipater.

This was the situation in June 323 BC when Alexander’s commanders met in the afflicted Royal Palace of Babylon. The assembled generals were all powerful figures and capable leaders. What was going to complicate things was their sense of competition. For the Greeks, competition was part of their nature; it was in their blood and present in every level of daily life, exposing soldier against soldier or, more appropriately, in this case, general against general. Alexander grew up with the very notion of competition, and he unceasingly instigated it in his army by organizing combats among his men or holding theater festivals in which contestants vied for attention. At the Babylon Conference, this meant that none of the generals present was initially ready to make any concession to the other. A tricky situation, to say the least.

What if … Alexander had died a few months later, after his son with Roxane was born and Craterus had replaced Antipater in Macedonia?

It is obvious that there would have been a successor and one recognized by Alexander himself, although it remains to be seen whether the boy would have lived long enough to succeed his father. It would have been logical and more practical to rule Alexander’s empire from Babylon, but I doubt any of his generals saw it that way. For them, Macedonia was still their homeland, with Pella as its heart.

With Craterus as Regent of Macedonia instead of Antipater, there were two centers of power: one in Pella, where the army of some 10,000 was reinforced by the 10,000 veterans Craterus had taken back home, and one in Babylon, where the bulk of Alexander’s army was waiting for new orders. Yet again, all generals were present in Babylon, except Craterus, who, as second-in-command to Alexander, could not be ignored. More than 2,000 km separated both camps, and Craterus could hardly leave Greece for Babylon, unless Polyperchon would or could replace him properly. It all would depend on how stable the situation in Greece was when the news of Alexander’s death reached the Palace of Pella. But could or would the other generals wait for Craterus’ arrival?

At least Arrhidaeus was redundant. But how safe would Roxane and her young son have been? She is accused of having murdered Alexander’s latest wives, the two daughters of King Darius, poisoned, apparently, with the help of Perdiccas. The next question is, would Perdiccas have dared to assist Roxane if Craterus had been controlling Macedonia? Would or could Roxane have murdered the two princesses on her own? Nothing is certain, of course.

Another important factor is that with Craterus firmly installed in Macedonia, Cassander had little or no chance to spread his wings. This means that the murders of Alexander IV, Roxane, Heracles, Barsine, and Olympias would not have taken place. Even Arrhidaeus may have come out alive of the Successors’ War, and there would have been no need for him to marry Adea/Eurydice either.

In the end, and to cut my speculations short, the Successors would have been fighting all the same, although the odds were slightly different since Cassander had not come to power and Alexander IV might have lived long enough to become the next Great King of Asia – who knows…