Eirene XLVII, 2011, pp.

118126

Simply the Best.

Alexanders Last Words,
and the Macedonian Kingship*

BORJA ANTELA-BERNRDEZ
Barcelona
To Ernst Badian, in memoriam.

Just before his death, Alexander would have whispered something like in order
to appoint his successor as king and ruler of his Empire. The Latin writers translated the Greek
form as optimus and dignissimus. This paper deals with what Alexander might have
had in mind when he said these words, and with the traditional system of succession in the Argead
Kingdom of Macedon.
Myth can be a useful tool for understanding the Macedonian royal political tradition. The origins of the royal house of Macedon shed some light on the key questions of how the Macedonians
ruled. Thus, the members of the dynasty of the Argeads claimed to be descendants of two mythical figures: Argos, the son of Macedon,1 and Heracles, son of Zeus. As descendants of Temenus,2
the members of the Macedonian royal house came from a mythical group of Heraclids who,
during their flight from Greece, would have come to the territories of the North and founded the
kingdom of Macedon. They imposed their will over the peoples living in that area by force. This
is why King Alexander I of Macedon claimed to be of Hellenic origin.3 His claim highlights the
ties between the Greek rulers and the conquered barbarian people of Macedonia.4 Therefore, the
*
This paper has received support from Spanish government inside the research project La gestin poltica de las
crisis humanitarias en el mundo grecorromano (ss. IVI a. C.) HAR201019185, directed by Dr. A. aco de Hoyo.
Thanks must be given here to my colleagues and students in the Autonomous University of Barcelona for their patience
and useful help. This paper is dedicated to Ernst Badian, as a powerful inspiration for historical research. Also, I would
like to dedicate it, too, to my beloved Mireia Bosch Mateu, and to my lovely son, Max Antela.

1
HERODOTUS, Histories, VIII,137139,1; ISOCRATES, V,32; DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, I,18; A POSTOLOS DASKALAKIS, The
Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians, Thessalonika 1965, pp. 98105; NICHOLAS H AMMOND, The Macedonian State,
Oxford 1989, pp. 23 and 1619.
2
PAUSANIAS, Description of Greece, II,6,7; II,11,2; II,12,6; II,13,1; II,18,7; II,19,1; II,21,3; II,26,2; II,28,3f.; II,38,1;
III,1,5; IV,3,3f. The Hellenistic kings, although they were not members of the Argead/Temenid family, linked their royal
lineages to Heracles: CHARLES F. EDSON, Antigonids, Heracles and Beroea, in: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 45,
1934, pp. 213246, esp. p. 219.
3

WILLIAM GREENWALT, Herodotus and the Foundation of Argead Macedonia, in: Ancient World 13, 1986, pp. 117122;
EUGENE BORZA, Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal House, in: Hesperia Supplement 19,
1982, pp. 713. The names ArgeadTemenid: NICHOLAS H AMMOND, The Macedonian State (n. 1), pp. 1619.
4
X ENOPHON, Cyropaedia, VII,5,73; A RISTOTLE, Politics, I,1255a6; A NDREAS MEHL, DORIKTETOS CHORA. Kritische
Bemerkungen zum Speererwerb in Politik und Vlkerrecht der hellenistischen Epoche, in: Ancient Society 1112, 19801981,
pp. 172212; NICHOLAS H AMMOND, The King and the Land in the Macedonian Kingdom, in: Classical Quarterly 38, 1988, pp.
382391; JACOB SEIBERT, Panhellenischer Kreuzzug, Nationalkrieg, Rachefeldzug oder makedonischer Eroberungskrieg?
berlegungen zu den Ursachen des Krieges gegen Persien, in: Alexander der Groe eine Welteroberung und ihr Hintergrund.
Vortrge des Internationalen Bonner Alexanderkolloquiums, 19, (Hrsg.) WOLFGANG WILL, Bonn 1998, pp. 558.

118

SIMPLY THE BEST. ALEXANDERS LAST WORDS, AND THE MACEDONIAN KINGSHIP

authority and territorial power of the kings came from their military success over the people under their rule.5 The Argeads became the Greek lords of a barbarian people, whose objective was
to Hellenize them. Perhaps, this explains the military position of the Macedonian kings, how
they were able to economically exploit and maintain authority over their new territory (which
was won by force). So, Macedonia was a spear-won land (doriktetos chora).6
Thus, the first Argead kings founded the Macedonian kingdom by force.7 The conquest justified
the kings owning the land, as far as Macedon was the doriktetos chora of the Argeads.8 The kings
needed to manage the natural resources of the kingdom (gold, silver, timber and the like).9 At the
same time, they were the main representatives of the kingdom in foreign policy and also the high
priest of the Macedonian people. The king was responsible for managing the religious links between
the gods and the state.10 In fact, some scholars have used the term personal monarchy11 to describe the Macedonian political system, stressing that kings embodied the state.12 Nevertheless, the
Macedonian royal system could have included some structures of representation for the Macedonians,
such as the army. The army was allowed to put some limits on the king in power and the governments
decision-making.13 Likewise, this political setup was not exclusively a Macedonian particularity,
and similar systems had been typically accepted as the political form of the Herrenvolk, since there
are many examples of them throughout the Ancient World.14 Aristotle told us about an ancient law
5
A good example of this practice was the relationship that Alexander the Great established with the cities of Asia
Minor. ELIAS BICKERMAN, Alexandre le Grand et les Villes dAsie, in: Revue des tudes Grecques 47, 1934, esp. pp. 364
365; VICTOR EHRENBERG, Alexander and the Greeks, Oxford 1938, pp. 151; K RZYSZTOF NAWOTKA, Freedom of the Greek
Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great, in: Klio 85, 2003, pp. 1541, with full bibliography. Otherwise,
the destruction of Thebes by Alexander, and also its reconstruction by Cassander, was another side of this right, apart
from other parameters tied to the concret historical moment. See IAN WORTHINGTON, Alexanders Destruction of Thebes,
in: Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander the Great, (eds.) WALDEMAR HECKEL LAWRENCE A. TRITLE, Claremont
2003, pp. 6586; NICHOLAS PURCELL, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in: Ethics and Rethoric. Classical Essays for
Donald Russell on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, (ed.) DOREEN INNES, Oxford 1995, pp. 133148; H ANS-JOACHIM GEHRKE, Der
siegreiche Knig. berlegungen zur hellenistischen Monarchie, in: Archiv fr Kulturgeschichte 64, 1982, p. 254, stresses
the key position of both founding and destructing cities as a component of kingship, reasserting Victory and legitimating
royal rule.
6
War was a part of a productive system that was a common reality of the ancient Greek world since Homer. Some
scholars have stressed the links between the Homeric world and the Macedonians: ADA COHEN, Alexander and Achilles
Macedonians and Mycenaeans, in: The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, (eds.) JANE B. CARTER
SARAH P. MORRIS, Austin 1995, pp. 483505; contra PIERRE CARLIER, Homeric and Macedonian Kingship, in: Alternatives
to Athens, (eds.) ROGER BROCK STEPHEN HODKINSON, Oxford 2000, pp. 259268; . ,
, in: Ancient Macedonia II, Thessalonika 1977, pp. 397407.
7

THUCYDIDES, History of the Peloponnesian War, II,99,1; A RISTOTLE, Politics, 1310b39.

A RRIAN, Anabasis, II,14,7; DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XIII,49,2; XVII,17,2; XIX,105,4; NICHOLAS H AMMOND, The King
and the Land (n.4), p. 389.
9
EUGENE BORZA, The Natural Resources of Early Macedonia, and EUGENE BORZA, Timber and Politics in the Ancient
World: Macedon and the Greeks, both in: Makedonika: Essays by Eugene N. Borza, (ed.) CAROL G. THOMAS, California
1995, pp. 3755 and pp. 85112.
10

BORJA A NTELA-BERNRDEZ, Alexandre Magno e Atenas, Santiago de Compostela 2005, pp. 169170.

11

Max Webers charismatic leadership: H ANS-JOACHIM GEHRKE, Der siegreiche Knig (n. 5), pp. 250251, 269 and

271.
12
R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, Macedonian Royal Style and Its Historical Significance, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies
94, 1974, p. 21.
13

PIERRE BRIANT, Antigone le Borgne: les dbuts de sa carrire et les problmes de lassamble macdonienne, Paris
1973, pp. 235350.
14
I. e. CAESAR, Commentaries on the Gallic War, VI,23,4. See A LAN E. SAMUEL, Philip and Alexander as Kings:
Macedonian Monarchy and Merovingian Parallels, in: American Historical Review 93, 1988, pp. 12701286.

119

BORJA ANTELA-BERNRDEZ

in Macedon: a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter instead of a belt.15 So, this
seems to confirm that the Macedonian society defined itself by martial terms. Further examples
concern Alexander I of Macedon and his participation in the Persian Wars, Herodotus, wrote that the
Macedonian king was the General and the King of the Macedonians; the political and military leader.16 means the ability to command troops.17 Thus, Macedonian kings needed to possess,
and successfully exhibit, military skills.18 Victory is the only way to show military skills. Then, victory in battle seems to be the unique way for a Macedonian potential heir to the throne to demonstrate
their ability to rule. Therefore, princes vying for the throne sought out war.
Some scholars have argued that royal succession was based on the blood-line of the Argead
family.19 As a consequence, the throne usually went from fathers to sons. The king chose his own
successor among his sons.20 Likely, albeit unofficial, the king associated prerogatives, powers and
responsibilities with his chosen heir, such as regency, embassies, etc. This allowed prince to demonstrate his kingly qualities. Furthermore, when a king died without a successor, other members of the
TemenidArgead family, such as the kings brothers or other male members of the royal family, could
rule as regents or even recognised as kings.21
The above illustrates the existence of a customary law on regal succession. When doubtful or
illegal heirs appeared, the assembled army protected customary tradition.22 However, there was
constant instability within the Argead dynasty which leads us to question the viability of this customary set-up.
Ancient sources revealed the difficulties that were had maintaing this policy of succession.
Since the historical beginnings we find dynastic instability.23 After Alexander Is death, his sons
fought for power. An alliance between Perdiccas and Philip against Alcetas finished in the death
of the latter, and the division of the Macedonian territory between Perdiccas and Philip. This led
up to the beginning of new hostilities between Philip and Perdiccas for the control of the whole
15

A RISTOTLE, Politics, VII, 1324b11.

16

HERODOTUS, Histories, IX,44. CAROL J. K ING, Macedonian Kingship and Other Political Institutions, in:
A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, (eds.) JOSEPH ROISMAN I AN WORTHINGTON, Oxford 2010, esp. p. 379.
17
SUDA, s. v. (2). Nevertheless, sources agree in affi rming that the Macedonian kings ruled by law, not
by force: CURTIUS, History of Alexander the Great, X,7,9; JUSTIN, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus,
XXIV,5,14; POLYBIUS, Histories, XV,25,11. See JOHN R. ELLIS, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, London 1976,
p. 24.
18

MICHAEL M. AUSTIN, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, Cambridge 1981, p. 67.

19

FRANCISCO JAVIER FERNNDEZ NIETO, La designacin del sucesor en el antiguo reino de Macedonia, in: La figura
del sucesor en la realeza helenstica, (ed.) VICTOR A LONSO TRONCOSO, Madrid 2005, pp. 2944, with full bibliography. On
the links between the Macedonian kings and the gods: H ANS-JOACHIM GEHRKE, Der siegreiche Knig (n.5), p. 274; SYLVIE
LE BOHEC-BOUHET, The Kings of Macedon and the Cult of Zeus in the Hellenistic Period, in: The Hellenistic World: New
Pespectives, (ed.) DANIEL OGDEN, London 2002, pp. 4157.
20
H ANS-JOACHIM GEHRKE, Der siegreiche Knig (n.5), pp. 270271. Also, EDWARD A NSON, Philip, Amyntas Perdicca,
and Macedonian Royal Succession, in: Historia 58, 3, 2009, p. 278: Certainly, the Macedonian kingship during the
Argead dynasty did not possess a very systematic succession process. There were, however, elements that suggest the
existence of certain nomoi related to royal succession.
21
A LEXANDER MEEUS, Some Problems concerning the Succession to Alexander the Great, in: Historia 58, 3, 2009,
pp. 292392, shows an excellent approach to the Macedonian royal tradition on regency.
22
FRANCISCO JAVIER FERNNDEZ NIETO, La designacin del sucesor (n.19), pp. 3133. The merit of Prof. Fernndez
Nietos thesis lies in his ability to present a general legal framework for understanding the successsion system:
pp. 4243.
23
MILTIADES B. H ATZOPOULOS, Succession and Regency in Classical Macedonia, in: Ancient Macedonia, IV,
Thessalonika 1986, pp. 279292.

120

SIMPLY THE BEST. ALEXANDERS LAST WORDS, AND THE MACEDONIAN KINGSHIP

Macedonian Kingdom.24 In spite of Perdiccas victory, the problem continued with Athenian
support for Amyntas, son of Philip, to whom Perdiccas defeated as well.25 Perdiccas successor,
Archelaus, a devoted partisan of Athens during the Peloponesian War,26 seemed to be free from
the conflict of succession. Archaelaus eliminated all of the legal and illegal candidates to the
throne.27 At Archaelaus death brings us to the brief reigns of Orestes, Aeropos, Amyntas II and
Pausanias during the period 399394/393 BC.28 Finally, king Amyntas III won over his brother.
His rule injected stability into the region despite the difficulties Macedon suffered in the first part
of his reign due to the external invasions.29 After Amyntas death, his successor Alexander II
was succeeded by Ptolemy of Alorus, a dark historical figure,30 who likely defended his rule
from attack by potential heirs and candidates to the throne, especially from Pausanias.31 In 365,
Perdiccas killed Ptolemy of Alorus and became the new Macedonian king.32 With Perdiccasdeath,
dynastic instability returned to threaten Macedon. The conflict of interests between the two heirs
to the throne, Perdiccas young brother Philip and Perdiccass son Amyntas, caused yet another
war.33 Ancient sources reveal that after Philip IIs victory a new candidate to the Macedonian
throne came to light. Philip II had to defeat the mysterious Argaios.34 This would not be the only
24
A RNALDO MOMIGLIANO, Philippe de Macdoine : essai sur lhistoire grecque du IVe sicle av. J.-C, Combas 1992,
p. 32, considered Alcetas the legal successor of Alexander I; contra, R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, A History of Macedonia,
London 1990, p. 15, and JOHN R. ELLIS, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (n. 17), p. 37, who defended Perdiccass
option. NICHOLAS H AMMOND GUY T. GRIFFITH, A History of Macedonia, II, Oxford 1979, p. 115, explain the successory
conflict after Alexander I by his sudden death. About the division of the Macedonian kingdom between Perdiccas and
Philip alter Alcetas death, see A RNALDO MOMIGLIANO, Philippe de Macdoine (n. 24), pp. 3236. JOHN R. ELLIS, Philip II
and Macedonian Imperialism (n. 17), p. 8 and pp. 3640, understood that territorial division between the two brothers as
a result of the rivalry between the Upper and Lower Macedonia.
25

THUCYDIDES, History of the Peloponesian War, II,99101. See RUSSELL MEIGGS, The Athenian Empire, Oxford 1972,

p. 197.
26

THUCYDIDES, History of the Peloponesian War, II,100,12; contra PLATO, Gorgias, 479a.

27

R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, A History of Macedonia (n. 24), p. 25.

28

Archelaus death seems to be a consequence of the court intrigues, or maybe even an accident: NICHOLAS H AMMOND
GUY T. GRIFFITH, A History of Macedonia, II (n. 24), p. 167. About the reigns of Orestes, Aeropus, Amyntas and Pausanias,
DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XIV,37,6; XIV,84,6; XIV,89,2; XV,60,3; DUANE A. M ARCH, The Kings of Macedon: 399369 B.C.,
in: Historia 44, 1995, pp. 257264.
29

A RNALDO MOMIGLIANO, Philippe de Macdoine (n. 24), p. 45, mentions a conflict between Amyntas III and a pretender to the throne of unknown origins.
30
This Ptolemy was an Athenian embassador in Macedon in 375: NICHOLAS H AMMOND GUY T. GRIFFITH, A History
of Macedonia, II (n. 24), p. 181. Likewise, JOHN R. ELLIS, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (n. 17), p. 43, presents
him as brother-in-law of Alexander II; contra NICHOLAS H AMMOND GUY T. GRIFFITH, A History of Macedonia, II (n. 24),
pp. 182186, who argues that Ptolemy would be a son of Amyntas II. Literary sources designed Ptolemy as the assassin
of Alexander II, and as a result of that, he was declared regent, with his wife Eurydice, of the young prince Perdiccas:
DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XV,71,1; XV,77,5; XVI,2,4; A ESCHINES, On the Embassy, 29; JUSTIN, Epitome of the Philippic
Histories of Pompeius Trogus, VII,4,7. JULIA HESKEL, Philip II and Argaios: A Pretenders Story, in: Transitions to Empire:
Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360146 B.C, in Honor of E. Badian, (eds.) ROBERT W. WALLACE EDWARD M. H ARRIS,
Oklahoma 1996, p. 48.
31
Possibly, Pausanias was a member of the royal family. Following DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XVI,2,6. NICHOLAS
H AMMOND GUY T. GRIFFITH, A History of Macedonia, II (n.24), p. 182, propose this Pausanias could be the same as mentioned by THEOPOMPUS, Fragment 115 F 29 (JACOBY). Likewise, JULIA HESKEL, Philip II and Argaios (n.30), p. 41, thinks this
Pausanias was an exile, maybe during the reign of Amyntas III, and he would came back to Macedonia with the foreign
support, in order to become king.
32

DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XV,77,5; XVI,2,4.

33

On Amyntas and Philips regency, see EDWARD A NSON, Philip, Amyntas Perdicca (n. 20).

34

On Argaios, JULIA HESKEL, Philip II and Argaios (n. 30).

121

BORJA ANTELA-BERNRDEZ

danger to Philips throne.35 Finally, after Philip IIs death, Alexander the Great had to eliminate
all possible competitors to the throne within Argeads family36 Finally, Alexanders half-brother
Arrhidaeus survived Alexander and was elected to the throne.37
This thesis shows that we simply cannot surmise that the Macedonian custom of succession
functioned as it should have. A king simply provided heirs who among themselves fought out who
would succeed him.38 Also, the absence of a regulation to stipulate who would succeed the throne
led to a proliferation of a large number of possible candidates to kingship. Therefore, the only
method to prove the legitimacy of a candidate from the rest was to eliminate the other candidates
through battle which served to demonstrate military leadership prowess.
In the preceding paragraphs a definition of the powers of the Macedonian king was proposed, as well as the problems of power experienced by these kings. Therefore, and in order to
offer a valid hypothesis and to seek to understand royal Macedonian succession, we must review
the importance of war in Macedonian culture. In fact, from the very beginning, the information
that ancient sources provide about war and monarchy in Macedon are clearly related. Herodotus
described the Macedonians as the Greek lords of a barbarian population. Taking this information as the starting point, war is presented as the background of Macedonian rule over their
conquered land (doriktetos chora). Therefore victory seems to be the main and the most likely
possible demonstration of power.
Alexander the Greats death brought about a serious crisis in succession, because the young
conqueror did not have any son alive to succeed him. Thus, Alexanders kingdom was left leaderless
when the king died from an unexpected illness.39 As a consequence of this, indirectly, Alexanders
death also meant, in a short time, the disappearance of the Argeads dynasty. Faced with a crisis of succession, the kingdom first elected Philip III Arrhidaeus the ill-minded half-brother of
Alexander as the new king in 323. This moment in Macedonian history led to a second key action:
the murder of the remaining members of the Argead family, Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV, son of
Alexander the Great with Roxana.
The appointment of Philip III Arrhidaeus as the king in 323 was likely a temporary solution in
a moment of emergency;40 a measure taken to buy time for Alexander the Greats unborn son. At
the same time, direct control of Alexanders vast empire was divided and shared between the hetairoi, designed as satraps of these lands.41 Nevertheless, two conditions must be considered. Firstly,
35
Olynthus gave support to Philips brothers: DEMOSTHENES, Third Philippic, 26; DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XVI,34,5;
XVI,53,3; JUSTIN, Epitome of the Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus, VIII,3,11; STRABO, Greography, X,447.
36

HELMUT BERVE, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, II, Mnchen 1926, p. 385.

37

On Arrhidaeus, see ERNST BADIAN, The Struggle for the Succession to Alexander the Great, in: IDEM, Studies in
Greek and Roman History, Oxford 1964, pp. 263264; STAVROS A. PASPALAS, Philip Arrhidaios at Court An Ill-Advised
Persianism? Macedonian Royal Display in the Wake of Alexander, in: Klio 87, 2005, pp. 72101; WILLIAM S. GREENWALT,
The Search for Arrhidaeus, in: Ancient World 10, 1984, pp. 6977.
38

FRANCISCO JAVIER FERNNDEZ NIETO, La designacin del sucesor (n.19), p. 42.

39

ERNST BADIAN, The Ring and the Book, in: Zu Alexander d. Gr., I, (ed.) WOLFGANG WILL, Amsterdam 1987,
pp. 605265.
40
R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, From Babylon to Triparadeisos: 323320 B C, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies 90, 1970,
pp. 5152; EDWARD M. A NSON, Craterus and the prostasia, in: Classical philology 87, 1992, pp. 3842; A LEXANDER MEEUS,
The Power Struggle of the Diadochoi in Babylon, 323 BC, in: Ancient Society 38, 2008, pp. 3982. Clairvoyantly, Ptolemy
proposed the creation of a committee of hetairoi for governing Alexanders Empire, CURTIUS, The histories of Alexander
the Great, X,6,1315.
41
JUSTIN, Epitome of the Philippic Histories, XIII,4,925; R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, From Babylon to Triparadeisos
(n. 40), pp. 5659. CURTIUS, The Histories of Alexander the Great, X,10,1, uses the term satrapes, the same as the Greek
sources (): i.e., A PPIAN, Syrian Wars, IX,5253.

122

SIMPLY THE BEST. ALEXANDERS LAST WORDS, AND THE MACEDONIAN KINGSHIP

a Macedonian king as was a military leader, and secondly, the enigma of the last words of the dying
Alexander: , the best. Thus, the election of Arrhidaeus, clearly incompetent to rule
a kingdom and lead an army into combat, contrasts with these last words of Alexander, and therefore must be taken as an emergency action to secure the heirless kingdom after Alexanders death.
Arrhidaeus coronation allowed for the maintenance of dynastic customs. However, at the same time,
Arrhidaeuss election as the new king implied the existence of a wide framework of conspiracies and
ambitions for the crown, between the most powerful men of the Macedonian army in Babylon.42
After Perdiccas death,43 the treaty of Triparadisus meant a new reorganization of the territories.44 This fuelled hostilities between different candidates to power. After Arrhidaeus death a new
alliance need to be formed. The peace of 311 redefined the relationship between the warring parties
and the crown of Macedon. The main consequence of this alliance was the murder of Alexander IV
in Macedon. Both Alexander IV and Roxana were merely casualties in the wider struggle for power.
With their death, the Argead family vanished into history, and Macedon remained without a king
until the proclamation of the Diadochs. These new monarchs, who used to be satraps, became kings
in 306/5, the year better known as The Year of the Kings.45
The killing of Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV meant that the measures established in Babylon
in 323 were simply transitory, employed during the complex process of the construction of the
new territorial governments of the Diadochs. Cassanders reasons to eliminate Alexander the
Greats son were obvious: if the last of the Argeads remained alive, then Cassander could not
secure his own position in power without fearing that another competitor might overthrow him in
the name of Alexanders son. The murder of Alexander IV, which happened during the archonship
of Simonides in Athens, was the result of the Peace of 311.46 The concise and powerful argument
made by Diodorus was this: there being no longer anyone to inherit the realm, each of those who
had ruled over nations or cities entertained hopes of royal power and held the territory that had been
placed under his authority as if it were a kingdom won by the spear (doriktetos chora).47
Although the Diadochs ruled their own territories without limits for years, surprisingly they
did not claim the throne until 306. One possible explanation of this strange lack of ambition in the
period between the death of Alexander IV, the last Argead king, and the Year of the Kings, is the
existence of another son of Alexander, called Heracles48. We know that Heracles death in 309,49
so the question becomes, why the Diadochs wait to claim the crown until 306/5? From the death
42
R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, From Babylon to Triparadeisos (n. 40); IDEM, Alexander in the Hellenistic World, in:
Alexandre le Grand: Image et Realit, (d.) ERNST BADIAN, Genve 1976, pp. 138141 and 149152; H ANS H AUBEN, The
First War of the Successors (321 B.C.): Chronological and Historical Problems, in: Ancient Society 8, 1977, pp. 85120.
43

On Perdiccas after Alexanders death, R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, From Babylon to Triparadeisos (n. 40), pp. 6465;
A. BRIAN BOSWORTH, Perdiccas and the Kings, in: Classical Quarterly 43, 1993, pp. 420427.
44
Nevertheless, as A LEXANDER MEEUS, Kleopatra and the Diadochoi, in: Faces of Hellenism. Studies in the History of
the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century B.C. 5th Century A.D.), (ed.) PETER VAN NUFFELEN, Leuven 2009, p. 68, has stressed,
at the time of Triparadeisos settlement it was still hard to depose officials who had been appointed by Alexander.
45

OLAF MLLER, Antigonos Monophtalmos und Das Jahr der Knige, Bonn 1973.

46

R. HOPE SIMPSON, The Historical Circumstances of the Peace of 311, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies 74, 1954,

p. 28.
47
DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XIX,105,4. Cf. MICHAEL M. AUSTIN, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman
Conquest (n.18), p. 57.
48

On Heracles, see WILLIAM WOODTHORPE TARN, Heracles, Son of Barsine, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies 41, 1921,
pp. 1828; R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON, Alexander in the Hellenistic World (n. 42), p. 147.
49
Or maybe 308 BC: PATRICK V. WHEATLEY, Polyperchon and the Murder of Heracles, in: Atichthon 32, 1998,
pp. 1223.

123

BORJA ANTELA-BERNRDEZ

of Alexander IV in 311 (or the death of Heracles in 309), there was no king of the Macedonians50
until Antigonos claim to kingship in 306.51 This strange situation, along with the long and the long
wait for the Diadochs to proclaim themselves as kings,52 is a key question to our understanding the
construction of the Hellenistic kingdoms. The vacant throne did not pose a threat to the kingdom
in the period of 309306 as it had in 323, as the candidates had already secured their interests
and territorial positions. Furthermore, these candidates experienced less of a challenge that before
as the total number of initial candidates had been reduced to approximately the members of the
alliance of 311.53
Nevertheless, the impact of the extinction of the Argeads royal bloodline must not be underestimated.54 There exists another reason why the Diadochs waited as long as they did before making
their claim to kingship: the need to obtain royal legitimacy. All sources agree in connecting the
claim of Antigonos and Demetrios claim in 306/5 to the brilliant victory of Demetrios in Salamis
of Cyprus over Ptolemys fleet.55 As far as we know, Antigonos claim signifies a point of continuity
with the Argeads, especially where Antigonos attempt to recover the whole of Alexanders empire
is concerned. His claim as Alexanders heir would have allowed Antigonos to adopt the title of king.
In turn, the association of his son Demetrios with the crown brings to light Antigonos desire to
start a dynastical kingship.56 In order to do so, he needed a concrete starting point such as a militar
victory to prove his legitimacy.
Various literary sources agree that Ptolemys claim imitated that of Antigonos. However, it could
also be linked to Ptolemys victory over Demetrios in the Rhodian siege.57 Ptolemy supported the islands in a military and in a logistical fashion to defeat Demetrios. At the same time, Ptolemy fought to
avoid the Antigonid invasion of Egypt, a conflict that resulted in a victory of the Ptolemaic forces over
50
Although some of them were proclaimed and treated as kings in some Greek cities, before the official date of 306:
PLUTARCH, Demetrius, 10; Cf. MICHAEL M. AUSTIN, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (n. 18),
p. 59f.
51
The last members of the Argead family were Cleopatra and Thessalonice, Philip IIs daughters. On Cleopatra,
DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XX,37,37; A LEXANDER MEEUS, Kleopatra and the Diadochoi (n. 44); R. M ALCOLM ERRINGTON,
Alexander in the Hellenistic World (n. 48), pp. 148152; ELISABETH CARNEY, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, Norman
2000, pp. 123128. On Thessalonice, ELISABETH CARNEY, The Sisters of Alexander the Great: Royal Relicts, in: Historia
37, 1998, esp. pp. 385392. On the matrimonial alliances of the Diadochs, GETZEL M. COHEN, The Diadochoi and the New
Monarchies, in: Athenaeum 52, 1974, pp. 178179.
52

NICHOLAS H AMMOND, The Macedonian State (n. 1), p. 269, argues that the lapse of time between Alexander IVs
death and Diadochs royal proclamation was a consequence of the fact that Cassander had concealed the news of the kings
death (during 3 years!), and anybody knew nothing about it until 306. I cannot accept this explanation.
53

R. HOPE SIMPSON, The Historical Circumstances (n. 46), pp. 3031.

54

JUSTIN, Epitome of the Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus, XV,2,1314: Huius honoris ornamentis tam diu omnes abstinuerunt quam diu filii regis sui superesse potuerunt. Tanta in illis uerecundia erat ut cum opes regias haberent,
regum tamen nominibus aequo animo caruerint quoad Alexandro iustus heres fuit. Also, A LEXANDER MEEUS, Kleopatra
and the Diadochoi (n. 44), p. 87: The Successors never planned to establish a new sort of monarchy; they simply ended up
doing so because none of them achieved the elimination of his rivals and managed to keep Alexanders empire together.
55
DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XX,53,24; PLUTARCH, Demetrius, 18,12; A PPIAN, Syrian Wars, 54; JUSTIN, Epitome of the
Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus, XV,2,1015; FRANCA LANDUCCI-GATTIONI, Lisimaco di Tracia nella prospettiva del
primo Ellenismo, Milano 1992, pp. 127132. About the battle of Salamis in Cyprus, cf. M AX CARY, A History of the Greek
World 323146 B. C., London 1972, p. 35 and its Appendix 4, pp. 385386. In words of PIERRE BRIANT, Antigone le Borgne
(n. 13), p. 310, Cest lui [Antigone] qui la pris personnellement, en justifiant publiquement cet acte par la Victoire. Also,
H ANS-JOACHIM GEHRKE, Der siegreiche Knig (n. 5), p. 261.
56

EDOUARD WILL, Histoire Politique du Monde hellenistique (32330 av. JC), I, Nancy 1979, p. 74; M AX CARY,
A History of the Greek World (n. 55), p. 36; R ICHARD A. BILLOWS, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the
Hellenistic State, Berkeley 1990, p. 157.
57

124

DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XX,8188.9199.

SIMPLY THE BEST. ALEXANDERS LAST WORDS, AND THE MACEDONIAN KINGSHIP

their enemies.58 In spite of these facts, the Ptolemaic adoption of the royal title is usually interpreted
as an act of opposition against Antigonids desire to reconstruct Alexanders empire. Ptolemy showed
his own authority over his territories from the time of Alexanders death. As a result of this, Ptolemys
claim to kingship was a turning point in the central administration of the lands that had previously
configured the Macedonian Empire. It was also a key step in forming the Hellenistic kingdoms.59
Sources indicate that the Diadochs continued their claim to the throne in the footsteps of
Ptolemy. Ancient records also show that all of the Diadochs participated in the resistance movement during the Rhodian siege by Demetrios. Moreover, the victory over him was not just a credit
to Ptolemy alone, but to all of his allies.60 This joint victory would have legitimatized all of their
royal claims.61 These events culminated in the appearance of the Hellenistic kingdoms.
In summary, Diodorus had already demonstrated the value of using battle conquest (doriktetos
chora) to show royal legitimacy. The authority obtained by a general through conquest of territory
was also one of the main elements to proving kingship qualities and legitimacy in pre-Hellenistic
Macedonian royal system. However, this structure of legitimacy did not justify in itself the position
of power that the new kings claimed for themselves. For the Graeco-Macedonian public and the
non-Hellenic conquered people, military leadership both of them, military leadership and conquest
were the ultimate argument for validity.
At this point, the words of the young dying king and conqueror Alexander seems to reverberate
around Babylon: to the best man62. That was his political last will. The Greek form, ,
meant, literally, to the strongest or to the best. However, ancient records coincide in as much
as that during his last days, Alexander was speechless. How, then, could he have said anything?
Perhaps, he never said so. If these words were not said by Alexander, then why did the Macedonian
hetairoi, the generals and the friends of the dying Alexander would think that these words were the
last ones spoken by him?
Of course, Alexanders last words can be a result of a later tradition, trying to resume the consequences of his death and the wars of the Diadochs in a premonition made by Alexander himself,
but maybe these words could be also a reference to anything else. Provided that Alexander did in
fact say these words, then one can assume that Alexander intended his words to be taken literally and that these words made reference to the strongest: the man most capable for ruling with
military prowess. Inherent in the Macedonian royal system was the belief that the strongest man
could lead the army successfully. Obviously, then, the only way there was in order to be a successful general was to have victory over another candidate to the throne. Perhaps, Alexander was
conscious that his dynasty, that of the Argeads, would die with him. However, his death and that
of his family did not mean the end of the Macedonian system of succession.
58

FRANCA LANDUCCI-GATTIONI, Lisimaco di Tracia (n. 55), p. 133.

59

The change from the Alexandrian and Antigonid Universalreich to the typical Hellenistic Partikulargedanke
is stressed by GETZEL M. COHEN, The Diadochoi (n. 51), pp. 177178.
60
JUSTIN, Epitome of the Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus, XV,2,15: quasi uictoria unius, non omnium foret.
Likewise, DIODORUS, Bibliotheca, XX,100,2, although he does not mention Seleucus.
61

ROBERT A. H ADLEY, Royal Propaganda of Seleucus I and Lysimachus, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies 94, 1974,
pp. 52, 55 and 6162; BORJA A NTELA-BERNRDEZ, Anchor and the Crown: Seleucos Use of the Anchor Coin Type in 305
B.C., in: Athenaeum 97, 2009, pp. 605608. On Victory as a key question of royal legitimacy by the Diadochs, R ICHARD A.
BILLOWS, Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden 1995, p. 89, although the argument is not fully
developed.
62

On Alexanders last words and fatal illness: A RRIAN, Anabasis, VII,26,3; PLUTARCH, Alexander, 76; JUSTIN, Epitome
of the Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus, XII,13,710. Also DONALD ENGELS, A Note on Alexanders Death, in Classical
Philology 73, 1978, pp. 224228; A. BRIAN BOSWORTH, The Death of Alexander: Rumour and Propaganda, in: Classical
Quarterly 21, 1971, pp. 112136.

125

BORJA ANTELA-BERNRDEZ

In closing, once the Argead dynasty vanished, the Diadochs discovered that victory was imperative in order to prove ones capacities as a military leader. As a consequence, after the passing
of the Argeads in 311308, the Diadochs could not immediately proclaim themselves as new kings,
but rather had to wait until they could justify their claim to kingship with a victory. For Antigonos,
the precipitous moment was in 306. His competitors, however, had to wait until 305/4 until they
won a military victory. Therefore, the last words of Alexander the Great on his deathbed can be
understood in their literal meaning: to the most capable, to the best man, . That is
to say, the most powerful, the strongest, the man that could impose himself on anyone and show
his military skills definitively by winning on the battlefield. As it happens, in the end, this was the
final legacy left by Alexander the Great.

Summary
Alexanders last words, as recorded in the ancient sources, would be referred to as a legacy of
his Empire to the best of his generals. Nevertheless, these words would also be reviewed as a key
information in order to understand the Macedonian system of succession during the Argead dynasty. Also, the changes provided by the activities of the Diadochs after Alexanders death in this
traditional system of succession for the Macedonians add new information to our knowledge of the
theoretical basis for the foundation of the new Hellenistic kingdoms.
Keywords: Alexander the Great; Macedonia; Argeads; succession; Diadochs

126