Visit https://ebooknice.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

(Ebook) The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare

and Propaganda Under the Successors by Albert Brian
Bosworth ISBN 9780198153061, 0198153066

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-legacy-of-alexander-
politics-warfare-and-propaganda-under-the-
successors-33347914

Explore and download more ebooks at ebooknice.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James

ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815,
1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II Success)

by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-
math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-s-sat-ii-success-1722018

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-
arco-master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094

ebooknice.com
(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth Study:
the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin Harrison ISBN
9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144, 1398375047

https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction by Bosworth, A.B and
Baynham, E.J.

https://ebooknice.com/product/alexander-the-great-in-fact-and-
fiction-36457668

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) The library. Books 16-20: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and
the successors by the Great Alexander;Siculus Diodorus;King of
Macedonia Philip II;Waterfield, Robin ISBN 9780191078064,
9780198759881, 0191078069, 0198759886
https://ebooknice.com/product/the-library-books-16-20-philip-ii-
alexander-the-great-and-the-successors-11974876

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Media, Propaganda and the Politics of Intervention by

Zollmann, Florian ISBN 9781433128240, 1433128241

https://ebooknice.com/product/media-propaganda-and-the-politics-of-
intervention-56107578

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Music, Piety, and Propaganda: The Soundscapes of Counter-

Reformation Bavaria by Alexander J. Fisher ISBN 9780199764648,
0199764646

https://ebooknice.com/product/music-piety-and-propaganda-the-
soundscapes-of-counter-reformation-bavaria-5152266

ebooknice.com
The Legacy of Alexander
This page intentionally left blank
The Legacy of Alexander
Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda under
the Successors

A. B, Bosworth

OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
 This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard specification
in order to ensure its continuing availability

OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford,
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal
Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press

in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© A, B. Bosworth 2002
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
Reprinted 2007
All rights reserved. No part of 'this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
And you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

ISBN 978-0-19-815306-1
 Preface

This book has had a long gestation. The idea was implanted
long ago when I was an undergraduate, wading through the
first chapter of Tarn and Griffith's Hellenistic Civilisation
with its dense and abbreviated summary of events after
Alexander. My friend Richard Hawkins remarked that there
had to be a more extended and lucid introduction to the
period, and the comment has been in the back of my mind
for nearly 40 years. I engaged more closely with the period
when I wrote my early article on the death of Alexander the
Great, and discovered to my chagrin, that I knew virtually
nothing about the Babylon Settlement and its aftermath. A
long learning process ensued, and 1 became more and more
convinced that there was an urgent need for a full historical
coverage of the half century after Alexander, something that
did not exist, and still does not, despite the series of biograph-
ies which have been published over the last decade, devoted
to the careers of individual dynasts. There still remains the
difficult task of integration and collation, drawing out the
general trends and exploring the complex interrelations of
ruler and subject, city and empire.
The present work is a prelude to the larger project. There
is a strong narrative core, dealing with the conflict between
Eumenes and Antigonus the One-Eyed, which probably did
more than anything to define the shape of the Hellenistic
world but has been astoundingly ignored in modern scholar-
ship. The central chapters amount to a history of the period
318—311, which saw the formation of the Antigonid and
Seleucid monarchies, and the Introduction provides an
analysis of developments in the five years after Alexander's
death. The early chapters set the scene. An intensive analysis
of the Babylon Settlement sheds new light on the power
groups as they emerged in 323 and the political interplay
which resulted in the overriding problem of the period, a
central monarchy with token kings, nominally exercising
vi Preface
authority over powerful regional satraps but with almost no
practical control over their supposed subjects. The political
setting leads to the main social issue, the practical dismem-
berment of what had, been the Macedonian national army.
A close investigation of the sources (often misinterpreted)
illustrates the gradual dissipation of the central army group
as it had served under Alexander. As early as 319 the bulk of
the Macedonian troops had been transferred from the royal
court, now in Pella, to serve under Antigonus (and provide
the foundation for his future empire). As the army dispersed
and Macedonians became less important, the kingship itself
lost any authority it may have had, and a new type of dynast
emerged. The final chapter accordingly addresses the prob-
lem of legitimation and explores the means by which power
was maintained or—equally important—lost.
Source analysis bulks large in my work. The period is
dominated by a shadowy literary colossus, Hieronymus of
Cardia, who by common consent lies behind the narrative of
the most detailed extant narrative, that of Diodorus Siculus.
It is heady material, a colourful, well-documented exposi-
tion from a contemporary of events and a friend of success-
ive kings. Information there is in plenty, as is generally
acknowledged, but there must also be disinformation—as is
increasingly realized to be the case with Hieronymus' closest
counterpart, Thucydides. Chapter 5 is a historiographical
investigation into the famous ethnographic digressions in
which Hieronymus subtly intrudes his own social and per-
sonal commentary. That is paralleled by the discussion of
the Babylon Settlement where (in the Latin account of
Curtius Rufus) we have a counter-tradition embellished with
late rhetoric and also affected by the political interests of the
court of Ptolemy. Almost all our literary evidence comes
from the entourage of the great dynasts, and propaganda is
pervasive. There is little documentary evidence. What there
is comes predominantly from Babylonia, in a large and varied
corpus of cuneiform tablets that still awaits full investigation.
I have tried to address this evidence throughout the work,
and I must admit frankly that it would have been, impossible
without the help of two gifted young Assyriologists. Cornelia
Wunsch worked with me as a Research Associate, funded
 Preface vii
by the Australian Research Committee and explained the
multiple ambiguities of interpretation, 1 also had a very
informative correspondence with Tom Boiy, whose compre-
hensive doctoral thesis has become an indispensable research
tool. I am conscious that some of my chronological conclusions
are not welcomed by cuneiform specialists, but they are the
product of integrating the Hellenic and Babylonian evidence,
and such dialogue is essential if there is to be progress in
the field,
1 have many other obligations. In 1998 I was a visiting fel-
low at All Souls College, enjoying its unparalleled hospitality
and exploiting the resources of the Bodleian and Ashmolean
libraries. Robert Parker suggested that I give a number of
seminars on the post Alexander period, and with that stimulus
I was able to write the first drafts of chapters 2, 3 and 6. 1 am
grateful for the invitation and for the helpful comments made
on those occasions by him, Robin Lane Fox, Robin Osborne,
John Ma, and many others. An invitation to Stanford
University in 1999 resulted in the final chapter. For detailed
advice and guidance on the complexities of things Nabataean
I am indebted to David Graf of Miami and to my colleague
David Kennedy. I should also acknowledge the support of my
university and department, for generous leave and financial
support for travel. I am particularly grateful to Pat Wheatley
for almost literally working through the manuscript with me
and injecting much of his considerable enthusiasm, and also to
Honours students in Perth and Newcastle who have been
inflicted with working drafts of the individual chapters.
Finally, and most importantly, I must pay tribute to my part-
ner, Elizabeth Baynham, who has lived through the work
from its outset, read and criticized the successive drafts, and
been an unfailing source of encouragement and inspiration.
I owe her more than I can say,
A.B.B.
September 2001
This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

Abbreviations x
1. Introduction I
2. The Politics of the Babylon Settlement 29
3. Macedonian Numbers at the Death of
Alexander the Great 64
4. The Campaign in Iran: Turbulent
Satraps and Frozen Elephants 98
5. Hieronymus' Ethnography: Indian
Widows and Nabataean Nomads 169
6. The Rise of Seleucus 2IO
7. Hellenistic Monarchy: Success and
Legitimation 246

Appendix: Chronology of events between

323 and 311 BC 279
Bibliography 285
Index 297
 Abbreviations

ABC A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian

Chronicles (Locust "Valley, NY 1975)
ABL R, F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters
(London and Chicago 1892—1914)
AC L 'Antiqidte classique
AHB Ancient History Bulletin
AION Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli
Ay AH American Journal of Ancient History
Al. in Fact A, B, Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds.),
and Fiction Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction
(Oxford 2000)
AncW Ancient World
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt
ANSMN American Numismatic Society. Museum Notes
AS Antike Schlachtfelder. Bausteine zu einer
antiken Kriegsgeschichte, 4 vols. (Berlin
1903-31)
Atkinson i J. E, Atkinson, A Commentary on Q, Curtius
Rufus' Historiae Alexandri Magni, Books j
and 4 (Amsterdam 1980)
Atkinson ii J. E, Atkinson, A Commentary on Q, Curtius
Rufus' Historiae Alexandri Magni, Books 5 to
7, 2 (Amsterdam 1994)
BuM Baghdader Mitleihingen
BCH Bulletin de correspondence helleniqiie
Beloch K. J. Beloch, Griechische Gesef'tichte, 2nd
edn., 4 vols, (Strassburg, Berlin, Leipzig
1922-7)
Berve H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf proso-
pographischer Grundlage, z vols. (Munich
1926)
BBS Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar
Billows, R. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the
A ntigonos Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley
1990)
 Abbreviations XI

BM British Museum (inventory number)

BN Beitrage sur Namenforschung
Bosworth, A. B. Bosworth, A Historical
HCA Commentary on Arrian's
History of Alexander i-
(Oxford 1980-)
Bosworth, A. B. Bosworth, 'Calanus and the
'Calanus' Brahman Opposition', in W. Will
(ed.), Alexander der Grosse. Eine
Welteroberung und ihr Hintergrund
(Bonn 1988) 173-203
Bosworth, 'History A. B, Bosworth, 'History and
and Artifice' Artifice in Plutarch's Eumenes', in
P. A. Stadter (ed.). Plutarch and the
Historical Tradition (London 1992)
56-89
Briant, RTF P. Briant, Rois, tributs et paysans
(Paris 1982)
Brunt, Arrian P. A. Brunt, Arrian, z vols., Loeb
Classical Library (Cambridge,
Mass. 1976-83)
BSOAS Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental
and African Studies
CA Classical A ntiquity
CAH Cambridge Ancient History,
znd edn, (1970-)
CHIran Cambridge History of Iran
CPh Classical Philology
CQ Classical Quarterly
CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian
Tablets in the British Museum
CW Classical Weekly
Del Monte G. F. Del Monte, Testi dalla Babilonia
Ellenixtica 1 (Pisa 1997)
DBA Dialogues d'histoire ancienne
Droysen J. G. Droysen, Geschichte des
Hellenismus, 2nd edn,, 3 vols.
(Gotha 1877-8)
EA Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschri/t fur
Epigmphik und historische Geographic
Anatolians
xii Abbreviations
FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragments der griechischen
Hisloriker (Berlin and Leiden 1923—)
GB Graser Beitrage
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
Goukowsky, P. Goukowsky, Diodore de Sidle, bibliotheque
Diodore xviii historique livre xviii (Paris 1 978)
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Heckel W. Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander's
Empire (London 1992)
HM N. G. L. Hammond et al,, A History of
Macedonia, 3 vols. (Oxford 1972—88)
Hornblower, Jane Hornblower, Hiemnvmus of Cardia
Hiemnvmus (Oxford 1981)
HSCP ' Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
Inset: Jasos W, Blumel, Die Inschriften von lasos,
IGSK28(Bonn 1985)
ISE L, Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche
(2 vols.: Florence 1967-75)
IG Inscriptiones graecae (ist edn. Berlin
1873-, 2nd edn, Berlin 1913-)
jfEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
LBAT T. G. Pinches et al., Late Babylonian
Astronomical and Related Texts
(Providence, RI 1955)
LGPN P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.),
A Lexicon of Greek Personal Nantes
i– (1988–)
OGIS Orientis g raeci inscriptiones selectae, ed.
W. Dittenberger, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1903-5)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare
(Oxford 1982)
PACA Proceedings of the African Classical
Association
PCG Poetae Comici Graeci, ed. R, Kassel and
C. Austin i- (Berlin 1983-)
Pearson, L. Pearson, The Lost Historians of
LHA Alexander the Great, Philological
Monographs 20 (New York 1960)
 Abbreviations xiii
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PKSln Kolner Papyri vi., Papyrologica
Coloniensis 7 (Opladen 1987).
RAL Atti della Accademia Nazionale del
Lincei. Rendiconti. Classe di Scienze
morali, storiche e filologiche
RE Realencyclopddie der classischen
Alteriumswissemchaft, ed, Pauly,
Wissowa, Kroll (Stuttgart 1893-)
REA Revue des etudes anciennes
SBBerlin Sitzungsberichte der preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist. Klasse
Schachermeyr, F. Schachermeyr, Alexander in Babylon
Al. in Babvlon und die Reichsordnung nach seinem Tode,
Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.
Klasse 286.3 (Vienna 1970)
Schober L. Schober, Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte Bahyloniens und der Oberen
Satmpien von 323—303 v.Chr.
(Frankfurt 1981)
Seibert, J. Seibert, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
Untersuchungen Ptolemaios' I (Munich 1969)
SO Symbolae Osloenses
Tarn, Al. W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, 2 vols.
(Cambridge 1948)
TBER J.-M. Durand, Textes babyloniens
d'epoque recente (Paris 1981)
TCL Textes cuneiform.es du Louvre
Walbank, HCP F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary
on Polybins, 3 vols. (Oxford 1957—79)
Welles, RC C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the
Hellenistic Period (London 1934)
YCS Yale Classical, Studies
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
This page intentionally left blank
 I

Introduction

i. A PERIOD OF DECLINE?

The period after Alexander is generally regarded as an

anticlimax, a depressing anticlimax. It was characterized by
destabilization and virtual anarchy, as the great king's mar-
shals fought for the empire which he had allegedly left to
the strongest of them. The army which he had led into Asia
was dissipated in a sequence of futile civil wars, and the elite
Macedonian troops were progressively reduced by combat,
much of it against fellow Macedonians. Out of the conflict
emerged a number of kingdoms, created by the ambitions of
individual satraps, which gradually coalesced into hereditary
dynasties. The main casualty was inevitably the ruling Argead
dynasty of Macedon, which became extinct 15 years after
Alexander's death, and Macedon itself ceased to be an imper-
ial power. It became one—and not the strongest—of a number
of successor kingdoms. The impression is one of decline
and disintegration. That is somewhat, misleading. Like the
Achaemenid empire before it, Alexander's empire was far
from a unified, organized whole. Even before his death ambi-
tious satraps might disregard his authority when he was in
distant, parts and lord it over their subjects as monarchs in
their own right.' And the process of disintegration had started
even before his death. Alexander himself had tacitly admitted
that the Indian lands were out. of control, relinquishing the
Indus provinces to native rulers.2 In the west too, in Thrace,
Cappadocia, and Armenia,3 there were powerful forces in
*In this chapter I keep footnotes to a minimum, referring, when appropriate, to
more detailed discussion later in the book.
1
On the details stse Boswotth, Conquest and Empire 147—8, 239—41; Alexander
and the East 23—4; Badian, irs /I./, in Fact and, Fiction 74—5,
2
Schober, Untersuchimgen 11—26; Bosworth, Antichthon 17 (1983) 39—45,
3
On Thrace see Ch. 7, pp, 268—71; on Cappadocia see App. Mithr,
8,25-6 — ! Iiermwmus, FtyrH 154 F 3; Diod. 18.16.1—3; PfuL Eum. 3.3—5; Nep. Eum.
2,2—3; orl Armenia see helow, p. 10,
2 Introduction
revolt or defying subjugation. That was largely the result of
Alexander's own pattern of action. For most of his reign he
was in constant movement, between 329 and 325 on the very
periphery of the old Achaemenid realms; and the most effect-
ive military forces he possessed were with him. It was only
in the last eighteen months of his life that he was relatively
stationary, travelling between the central capitals of the
empire as the Achaemenid rulers had before him. That was
too short a time to create institutions of empire other than
those he had inherited from the Persians, and at his death
he was about to leave for another point on the periphery,
the spice lands of southern Arabia. Further instability and
satrapal insubordination was almost inevitable. His death, it
could be argued, simply accelerated the process.
In contrast, the successor dynasts tended to be more con-
structive. This was largely because their regimes had origin-
ated in individual satrapies. They expanded outwards, but
the administrative and military centre remained. Antigonus'
power base was his satrapal capital of Celaenae.4 From there
he overran much of Asia Minor between 320 and 317. With
resources from his expanded satrapy he pursued Eumenes
into Iran and won the Battle of Gabiene, which gave him
effective control of most of the central satrapies of the
empire.5 He was almost in the position of Alexander when he
had pursued Darius III to his death, but he returned to the
west, first to Syria and after a highly successful campaign of
conquest there to his old capital of Celaenae. Power had
focalized. Alexander had been wholly atypical, an absolute
monarch without a fixed capital. Ptolemy on the other hand
had his Alexandria, Seleucus his Babylon and later Antioch,
Lysimachus his Lysimacheia, The competition for supremacy
discouraged grandiose military adventures. To embark on
an unlimited programme of conquest was to risk invasion
and the loss of one's home base (as Demetrius was to dis-
cover in 288).6 The practical imperative was to create the
resources to protect one's territory against invasion and
expand one's power base without overreaching oneself. For

4
See the historical sketch below, pp. 17—19,
5 6
Described in full in Ch. 4, pp. 112—68, See below, Ch. 7, p. 458.
 Introduction 3
all the glamour and charisma of Alexander his conquests
could not be repeated.
In this respect the period can be regarded as one of crea-
tion rather than disintegration. The successor dynasts had
to build their courts, recruit their armies and maintain an
adequate economic base. Talented individuals, mostly of
Greek origin, were attracted to the new courts to operate as
'friends', i.e. as advisers, administrators and commanders. At
a humbler level, fighting men were recruited from the entire
Mediterranean world, to be enlisted into the new armies or
settled as colonists with the obligation to serve in person if
called upon. Large-scale recruitment of this nature required
considerable finance and, apart from booty acquired in war,
the revenues were preponderantly gained through fiscal
exactions, such as land and poll tax and dues on sales, and for
the system to be operative it was necessary for the native
population to accept its rulers and support, with resignation,
if not enthusiasm what was in effect an occupation army.
Hence the adoption of native institutions and native titu-
lature in Egypt and Babylonia. The new dynasts proclaimed
themselves the successors of the previous rulers, blessed by
the native gods, whether Ahura Mazda, Bel Marduk, or
Amon Re, and the indigenous population to some degree
identified with the new regimes. When Ptolemy took to the
field in 312 to attack the Antigonid armies in Syria, the
majority of his troops were native Egyptian, not merely bag-
gage handlers and camp followers, but front-line fighters
'useful for combat'.7 Graeco-Macedonian settlers, however
numerous, were not sufficient for a grand army, and all major
battles from the death of Alexander were fought with an
exotic blend of troops: Macedonians, natives trained in
Macedonian style, mercenaries of all nationalities. Alexander
may have won his major battles without using troops other
than his Macedonians, but the situation had changed even
before his death. Iranian cavalry were used in front-line
situations as early as the battle of the Hydaspes (326), and
after the dismissal of 10,000 Macedonian veterans in 324

7
Diod. 19.80.4. On the use of native troops trained in Macedonian style see
Ch. 3, pp. So, 83 and Ch. 4.
4 Introduction
Alexander was increasingly turning to Iranian infantry which
had been trained in Macedonian weaponry and tactics. He
even experimented with a mixed phalanx of Macedonians
and Iranians, each using their traditional weapons.8 His
successors had no alternative but to follow his example. The
last army that was wholly or almost wholly Macedonian was
the expeditionary force which Craterus and Antipater led
into Asia in 321. Four years later, in the great campaign
of Paraetacene, both sides deployed composite armies with
Macedonians, both infantry and cavalry, in a minority.
This had an important consequence. The new rulers were
Macedonians, commanders under Alexander, but their courts
were more cosmopolitan, their friends recruited from the
entire Greek world and their armies still more heterogeneous.
And the entire structure rested on an agrarian population
which had little or no part in the political and military estab-
lishment. These natives might be coerced into subjection by
the military settlements created in their territory; but it was
economical to attract their good will. In other words, the
rulers were all things to all men. To their native subjects they
were the legitimate kings, the successors of indigenous rulers,
who like their predecessors had their power sanctioned by
the local gods. For their armies they were naturally com-
manders, who proved their legitimacy by success in the field
and by gaining spoils and land to reward their troops. For
their courts they were benefactors, rewarding good service
with material honour and wealth. The new regimes had no
tradition, no established customs; rather they encountered
a multiplicity of traditions which they absorbed and modi-
fied. For the populations of Egypt and Babylonia they were
pharaohs or kings of the four corners of the earth. For Greek
cities in their ambit they used the diplomatic language that
had evolved to transact business between city-states and hege-
monial powers.9 The rulers had absolute power over these
communities, but they courteously heard the representations
of city embassies and gave grants of freedom, autonomy,

s
Arr. 7.23.3, 24.1 (FGrH 139 F 58). See Ch. 3, pp. 79—81
** See now the subtle discussion by John Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Asia
Minor, esp. 179—242.
 Introduction 5
exemption from tribute or garrison, and graciously received
acclamations of saviour, benefactor, or even god manifest.
This is in effect the relation of fifth-century Athens to her
subjects, but the autocracy is less bluntly expressed than we
find with the sovereign demos— and the gratitude of the
subjects is more fulsome.
The new regimes were essentially the creation of indi-
viduals, who exploited the absence of any effective central
power. It could be a relatively gradual process, when a more
powerful satrap expelled or absorbed his neighbours, as
Antigonus did in Asia Minor between 315 and 313. There
were also what one might describe as defining moments, the
most important of which was the winter of 317/16 when two
warring coalitions of satraps fought it out in the Iranian
plateau. Antigonus emerged victorious from the campaign,
promptly outnian<KUvred his fellow generals, Peithon and
Seleucus, and became in effect master of a vast territory
from Persis to the Hellespont. At Alexander's death there
were twenty or so satrapies, in constant interplay with each
other, and by 308 they had effectively severed contact with
Macedon and coalesced into three separate groupings, under
Antigonus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. The reality was recog-
nized in 306, when Antigonus solemnly assumed the diadem,
the insignia of kingship, and took the title of Basileus for all
official purposes.10 He gave his son Demetrius the same
trappings, and his example was followed by Ptolemy and
Seleucus, by Cassander in Macedon, and even by Agathocles
in Sicily. It was the end of a charade. The new rulers had in
theory received their original power base from the king of
Macedon, from Alexander himself or the regents governing
in the name of the two incapable kings who succeeded him.
They recognized it in their public protocol. In Egypt and
Babylon Ptolemy and Seleucus represented themselves as
satraps, and even Antigonus merely styled himself 'royal
commander' (mh uqi) when he was master of Babylonia.
They were technically subordinates, but since Alexander's
death there had been no effective power to impose discipline
from above. The fatal step probably came in 319, when the
10
n ^j1js sce t|1£ eXpOSiti<)n jn Ch, 7.
6 Introduction
regent Antipater returned to Macedon with the two kings,
effectively renouncing the empire in Asia and delegating
most of the royal army to Antigonus. It gave Antigonus the
means to extend his power throughout Asia Minor and
defeat the satrapal coalition in Iran.
This process, the unravelling of central authority and the
creation of new monarchies, is the context of my book. It is
in no sense a formal history of the period but a series of
studies which explore the political and military background
and lay some of the groundwork for a more comprehensive
treatment. Some preliminary discussion is necessary, for the
events of the period were tumultuous and confused. For the
non-specialist they are frankly baffling, a kaleidoscope of
exotic individuals engaged in complex military and diplo-
matic manoeuvres on several fronts simultaneously. Some
basic points of reference are clearly desirable, and I hope it
will be of assistance to my readers if I now sketch in the early
stages, the division of the empire and the first bout of
internecine warfare which came close to defining the shape of
the Hellenistic world. Subsequent events, in particular the
period from 318 to 311, are covered in the central chapters
(4—6) of the book. T also provide a chronological appendix
correlating key events in Europe and Asia.

2. HISTORICAL ORIENTATION

Alexander's death on 10 June 323 left Macedonian resources

divided between three widely separated areas." The royal
court and most of Alexander's staff were with him in
Babylon at his death, as was a large army of Macedonians
and native troops. This was one focus of power. Another was
in Cilicia, where Alexander's most senior marshal, Craterus,
was entrenched with a veteran army of Macedonians and
controlled the arsenals which Alexander had been, establish-
ing for his future expansion in the west. Finally, in Macedon
proper, Alexander's regent, Antipater, remained in power.

u
What follows is a summary of the conclusions which I reach in Ch. a, where
sources and bibliography arc fully cited.
 Introduction j
He had been recalled by Alexander a year before the latter's
death and commissioned to lead reinforcements into Asia, but
neither he nor any military forces had moved, and he was still
the dominant figure in Europe. We have evidence only for
events in Babylon, where, it seems, the marshals were disin-
clined to make any radical decision. The first proposal was to
await the birth of the child who would be born to Alexander's
wife, Rhoxane, and in the unlikely event of its proving male
and surviving it would have four guardians, two of the Body-
guards at Babylon, Perdiccas and Leonnatus, and Craterus
and Antipater in the west. This cautious delaying of the issue
was sabotaged by the infantry at. Babylon, which demanded
a present, living king and proclaimed the half-brother of
Alexander, Arrhidaeus. He was mentally impaired and could
not rule without a guardian, but that was no deterrent to the
Macedonian rank-and-file or to their leader, Meleager, who
saw himself as the king-maker. A tense period of confronta-
tion between the infantry and cavalry eventually ended in
compromise, with the cavalry accepting Arrhidaeus and the
infantry agreeing to the child of Alexander as a second king.
The key players retained their positions. Perdiccas remained
as chief of staff (chiliarch), the position he had held under
Alexander: Antipater was confirmed in Macedonia, while
Craterus had a roving commission to promote the royal
interests wherever he thought fit.
The situation changed a little later, when Perdiccas was
able to dispose of Meleager and execute the chief mutineers
in the Macedonian infantry. He felt strong enough to assume
the regency, and he was hailed guardian of the kingdom by
his troops and authorized to decide on the satrapies as he
saw fit. It was in effect a coup. Antipater could do nothing
about it. Once reports of Alexander's death had been authen-
ticated in Greece, the Athenians and Aetolians made an
alliance against Macedon and called the rest of the Greek
world to the cause of liberty.12 Within a matter of weeks
Thermopylae was occupied by the insurgent forces, while
" For general bibliography on the Lamian War see J. Scibert, Das Zeitaller der
Diadochen 92—8, and the extremely useful dissertation of Oliver Schrmtt, Der
L&mtsche Kneg. For a short, recent account of the war see Christian Ilabichf,
/ithews t?om Alexander to Antony 36—42.
8 Introduction
Antipater himself, deserted by his crack Thessalian cavalry,
suffered the first defeat experienced by Macedonian arms in
30 years and took refuge in Lamia. There was nothing he
could do to effect events in Babylon, and Craterus also chose
to remain in Cilicia and await the outcome of events. For
the moment Perdiccas was the dominant personality, and he
distributed the satrapies with a view to entrenching his dom-
ination. The most powerful of Alexander's marshals disap-
peared from court and were assigned to remote satrapies,
where they had very limited forces at their disposal, too weak
at all events to challenge the power of the centre. However,
if the centre were to be weakened, then there was the oppor-
tunity for expansion. The monarchs-to-be had the bases for
their future power. Ptolemy occupied Egypt, where he found
a useful war chest of 8,000 talents, amassed by its adminis-
trator, the astute and unscrupulous Cleomenes of Naucratis.13
Another Bodyguard, Lysimachus, occupied Thrace, where
he was to hold sway for the rest of his long life. Yet another
of the main actors in the period, Antigonus, was confirmed
in Phrygia, where he had been installed by Alexander long
ago in 334 and had distinguished himself by repelling the
Persian counter-offensive after Issus.14 Seleucus was the
only future dynast who did not receive a satrapy in the dis-
tribution. He remained in Babylon, second in command
to Perdiccas with Perdiccas' old position of chiliarch. 15 That
left Perdiccas without a rival at the royal court: he was the
guardian of Arrhidaeus (who now changed his name to
Philip), commander of the army at Babylon, and the unchal-
lenged head of a group of subordinate commanders who
included his own brother Alcetas.
By the end of 323 the balance of power had changed.
Antipater was in desperate straits, defeated and under siege at
Lamia. He was awaiting reinforcements but it was uncertain

13
Dirid. 18.14,1; Just, 13.6,18—19; Arr. Slice. V la; Paus, 1.6,3, t)f> the career of
Cleomenes see Berve no. 431; Seibert, Utitersuchwigen 39—51; H, Kloft, G,B 15
(1988) 191—222; G. Lc Rider, BCH. izi (1997) 71-93.
14
On Antigonus' career under Alexander see briefly Hosworth, Conquest and
Empire 52, 62—3, 231; and at greater length Briant, Antigone le Borgne 53—74;
Billows, Anfig&w&s 36—48,
5:5
Oiod. 18.3,5; J^st, 13-4- 1 7> See the discussion irs Ch. 2, p. 56 with n. 10.2.
 Introduction g
who, if anyone, would come to his rescue. Craterus remained
in Cilicia and made no move towards Macedonia. He may
have been in genuine doubt what to do, and he was presum-
ably aware that Antipater had also made overtures to
Leonnatus in Hellespontine Phrygia.' 6 In the event he was
prepared to cede the glory of intervention. In Babylon
Rhoxane at last bore a son, who received his father's name
but not (at first) the kingship.17 It was prudent to wait until
he had survived the first year of infancy. But Perdiccas
had the acknowledged king (Arrhidaeus) in his power and
acted in his name. He also had an army at his disposal and
proceeded to use it. The pretext was given by another of the
powerful actors in our drama, Eumenes of Cardia. Eumenes
was a Greek who had acted as chief secretary for both Philip
and Alexander. As events were to show, he had a very consid-
erable strategic genius, and in the last years of Alexander he
commanded a unit of the elite Companion cavalry. At
Babylon he was given the satrapy of Cappadocia, which had
escaped conquest under Alexander and was dominated by an
Iranian noble, Ariarathes, None of the other commanders in
Asia Minor gave him military assistance, as they had been
instructed, and Perdiccas took the royal army to break the
power of Ariarathes and install Eumenes as satrap. In this he
was strikingly successful. Ariarathes was defeated in a full-
scale pitched battle and executed along with his family;
Eumenes immediately took over the provincial organization
of Cappadocia. Perdiccas, it would seem, now had the infant
Alexander formally proclaimed king.
Meanwhile, in Macedonia Leonnatus had at last brought
forces from Asia and Europe, to the relief of Antipater.
Leonnatus arrived early in the spring of 322, and lost his life in
a cavalry battle against the Thessalians. His infantry phalanx
was untouched, however, and joined forces with Antipater,
who was content to avoid another battle and return to
Macedon. Now Craterus at last made his move. He led his
10,000 veterans from Cilicia across Asia Minor. There is no

lh
Diod. 18,12.1; Plut. Eum. 3.6—8; just. 13.5,14-15,
!7
Art". Succ, F ia. r , On the chronology see Bosworth, f70 43 (1993) 423—6.
io Introduction
record of his meeting Perdiccas, and it is most likely that the
regent had invaded Cappadocia from the east, via Armenia
where his lieutenant Neoptolemus is attested operating with
a force of Macedonians.'8 These two principal actors in the
drama seem to have avoided each other, and it appears that
there was a real danger of conflict if they met in person. In
Macedonia Craterus decisively shifted the military equilib-
rium. His veterans brought the forces at Antipater's disposal
to over 40,coo,'9 far outnumbering the Hellenic coalition,
which was hamstrung by the absence of the Aetolians, pre-
occupied by their own concerns in the west.30 The Athenians
and their allies had no chance against this new army, led by
arguably the ablest of Alexander's marshals. At the Battle of
Crannon, late in July 322, the Macedonian phalanx proved
its superiority yet again over Greek hoplite infantry, and
almost simultaneously at sea Craterus' fleet won a series of
victories over the Athenians, culminating in the Battle of
Amorgos. The Lamian War now ended, as Athens surren-
dered and Antipater and Craterus dictated their terms
to the Greek alliance. It was the (temporary) end of demo-
cracy in the city of Pericles, which now came under a res-
tricted oligarchy, supervised by a Macedonian garrison in
Peiraeus. 2 '
Craterus had ostentatiously deferred to Antipater, the
older man and friend of Philip II, But there had clearly been
some friction, as Craterus dressed himself as a clone of
Alexander (without the diadem) and his soldiers compared
him very favourably with the small, unprepossessing figure

18
Pint. Kum, 4.1-4 (cf, IJriant, RTF 30-41; Husworth, ORBS 19 (1978) 132-3),
Armenia, like Cappadocia, w'as not under Macedonian control at the time of
Alexander's death, and its subjugation was unfinished business. Perdiccas could
have stamped his authority there on his way to Cappadocia, and after the defeat of
Anarathcs be sent Neoptolemus to complete the conquest. He rnoy have imposed
Orontes as satrap before the outbreak of the first coalition war. See Ch. 4, n. 93,
19
IJiod, 18.16.4-17.2. On the numbers see Ch. 3, p. 79.
20
I>iod. 18.13.3, IS-*- On the murky evidence for war in the west see my
forthcoming article, 'How did Athens lose the Lamian War?', in 0, Palagia and
S. V. Tracy (cds.), The Macedonians in Athens ^22-22g B.C. (Oxford 2003).
31
Diod. 18.18.4—5; Pint. Phoc. 27.5—28.7. On the settlement see Hammond,
//iM'iit.i 14—15; Habieht, Aihens from Alexander to Ant$n\' 44—6; L, Tritle, Phvciiyfl
the Oood 1.29—37, and most recently E. Poddighe, T)HA. 23/2 (1997) 47—82 and
K. J. Baynha.m, 'Antipater and Athens', in Paiagia and. Tracy (above, n. 20).
 Introduction 11
22
of Antipater. He married Phila, Antipater's eldest daugh-
ter, and prepared to return to Asia. That would have been a
reversal of Alexander's instructions, which were to have
Craterus replace Antipater as regent, as it was of the final set-
tlement at Babylon, which not only distributed the satrapies
but assigned Macedon to Craterus and Antipater together,23
That was hardly an attractive prospect for either, and it is not
surprising that Craterus was preparing for a return to Asia,
where he might coexist or—more likely—conflict with
Perdiccas. By the summer of 322 Perdiccas appeared domin-
ant. He followed his defeat of Ariarathes with a punitive
expedition against two cities of Lycaonia (Laranda and
Tsaura), which had resisted Macedonian rule and killed
Balacrus, satrap of Cilieia under Alexander.34 They were
ruthlessly destroyed, to deter resistance elsewhere. It was
at this peak of success that Perdiccas married Nicaea, a
daughter of Antipater, whom he had requested shortly after
Alexander's death. But she was not the only lady who had an
interest in him. The queen mother Olympias wrote, propos-
ing that he marry her own daughter, Cleopatra, Alexander's
full sister; and there is a tradition of disagreement in the
Perdiccan camp, Eumenes arguing that Olympias' offer
should be explored and Alcetas insisting that the marriage
agreement with Antipater should stand.25 A third princess,
Cynnane (also a daughter of Philip II), also entered into
contention. She evaded Antipater's custody and fled to
Asia Minor with her daughter. There she was killed in mys-
terious circumstances by Alcetas, apparently with Perdiccas'

" This was emphatically stated in Arrian's History of events after Alexander
(below, p. 22): cf. Arr. Sncc. ¥ rtj (sec also the pew Goteborg palimpsest) with Plut.
Phoc. 29,3.
z:<
The planned return to Asia is attested by Diod. 18.18.7. The division of
.Vjaeedon at Babylon is attested only m Arr. Succ, ¥ ia-7 (see Ch. 2, pp. 58—9).
24
Oiod. 18.22.i. Balacrus appears to have been the tirst husband of Phila,
daughter of Antipater and wife of Craterus (WelirJi, Historia 13 (1964) 141; Heckel,
ZPE 70 (1987) 161-2; Badian, ZPE 72 (1988) 116; Bosworth, CQ 44 (1994) 60). He
bad been a Bodyguard of Alexander (Arr. 2.1.2.2), and was clearly a noble of the
highest distinction, whose death cried out tor vengeance.
25
Arr. Succ. F 1.21; cf. Just. 1.3.6.4—7. According to Diodorus (18.23,1) Cleopatra
came in person to Lycaonia.. That is unlikely; the intrigue would have been too obvi-
ous, Ferdiccas later invited her to Sardes, where she had established herself by early
321 (Arr. Succ, I" 1.26, 25.2—6). That was a prelude to tormal marriage.
12 Introduction
26
connivance. It is clear that she was deeply estranged from
Antipater, and neither Perdiccas nor his brother wished to
cause a provocation by giving her sanctuary and support.
However, her death was found intolerable by the troops, who
came close to mutiny, and to calm the situation Cynnane's
daughter was married to King Philip, his mental disability
notwithstanding, and like her husband (and uncle) she
assumed a royal name, Eurydice. This was a woman of a very
different mould from her husband, deeply ambitious, calcu-
lating and hostile to Antipater; she was no cipher, to be
manipulated at will.
This complex situation became even more entangled when
Perdiccas intrigued against Antigonus, the long-standing
satrap of Phrygia, who had kept up friendly relations with
Antipater throughout Alexander's reign. Perdiccas is said to
have been suspicious of his ambitions and summoned him to
answer charges of conspiracy.27 Antigonus accordingly fled
to Europe, where he joined Antipater and Craterus in
Aetolia. It was the winter of 322/1, and they were crushing
the last of the insurgent powers. Antigonus 5 arrival saved
Aetolia for the moment. He brought news, or rumours, of
the intrigues for the hand of Cleopatra, and it was sufficient
to push the two dynasts into open war.28 At the same time
Perdiccas had sent Eumenes to negotiate with Cleopatra in
her residence at Sardes, and his arrival was duly passed on to
Antigonus by Menander, the sympathetic satrap of Lydia. 29
That consolidated the impulse to war, and the spring of 321
saw Antipater and Craterus at the Hellespont at the head of
a Macedonian army which could compare, in numbers at
least, to Alexander's expeditionary force of 334. But Perdiccas
had fatally overreached himself by alienating Ptolemy in
Egypt. Late in 322 the immensely lavish catafalque which
contained the enbalmed body of Alexander began its

zf>
Arr. Slice. V 1,22—3; Polyaen. 8.60; cf. Diod. 19,52.5. Bee particularly
E, Carney, Women and Monarchy ??? Macedonia 29—31, arguing that Cyrmane
intended her daughter to marry Philip Arrbkiaeus; there is no warrant for this in the
sources.
27
Arr. Succ. F i.zo; Diod. 18,23.3—4; cf. Billows, Antigonos 58—9,
2
^ Dtod, 18.25.3—5; An\ Succ. F 1.24. ! rake the winter of Diod. 18,25,1 to be
2l>
that of 322/1. Arr. Succ. F 1,26; cf. F 25.2.
 Introduction 13
journey west from Babylon, Perdiccas, it would seem,
intended to take control of the mortal remains, whether to
keep them with him for the moment or to escort them to
their final destination.30 But. he was forestalled by Ptolemy
who met the cortege near Damascus and escorted it south to
Egypt.3' Perdiccas had lost, the body with all the mystique it
invested upon its owner, and he was set on recovering it.
That meant war, not merely with Ptolemy but also the city
kings of Cyprus who had allied themselves with him.
Perdiccas had to engage on several fronts, and he chose
to concentrate his own efforts on Egypt. In Asia Minor
Eumenes was commissioned to co-ordinate the defence
against Antipater and Craterus. Unfortunately the other com-
manders in the area refused to co-operate. Alcetas, slighted
at being passed over by his brother, stayed in Pisidia with
his Macedonian forces, while Neoptolemus fought a pitched
battle against Eumenes, losing the engagement thanks to the
superior cavalry that Eumenes had recruited in Cappadocia.
In the confusion Craterus and Antipater crossed the Hellespont
unopposed. Despite the disarray in his camp Eumenes com-
bined his and Neoptolemus' armies and faced Craterus in
battle in the early summer of 321.32 This battle was militar-
ily inconclusive. The two phalanxes failed to engage (it
would have pitted Macedonian against Macedonian) and the
fighting was restricted to the cavalry on the wings. Here the
great casualty was Craterus who died heroically; Eumenes on
the other wing killed his bitter enemy Neoptolemus in single
combat and routed his cavalry. The defeated force remained
together, and Eumenes did not risk attacking its infantry.
*° The consensus of the sources is that the body of Alexander was originally
intended to be buried at Siwah (Diod. 18,3.5; Curt. 10,5,4; Just. 12.15,7; 13-4.6)- It"
Pausanias (1.6.3) 's correct, Arrhidacus was instructed to take the body to the
Macedonian capital of Aegae. That rmght have been a decision made through
mutual consultation by Perdiccas, Craterus, and Antipater in the year after the
king's death. In that case Perdiccas would have been unwilling to let the body pass
into the control of Antipater and Craterus once hostilities had broken out, and he
would have been eager to intercept it and dispose of it at hm leisure after he had won
the war.
31
Arr. Succ. F 1.25, 24,1; Diod, 18.28,2-5; Strabo 17.1.8 (794); Parian Marble,
FGrH 239 R n. See in particular Badian, HSCP 72 (1967) 185-9; Seibert,
Untersuckwigeii 96—102, 110—12.
^ On this campaign sec Ch. 3 f pp. 8 i > 84—5.
14 Introduction
The troops agreed to an armistice, but then withdrew by
night and joined Antipater, who had gone ahead to Cilicia.
Meanwhile there had been a resolution of the crisis. Perdiccas'
invasion had misfired, like so many previous invasions of
Egypt. He failed to break the coastal defences at Pelusium,
and he sustained an unacceptable number of casualties when
he attempted to cross the Nile near Memphis.33 Alienated by
his autocratic savagery,34 his chief lieutenants, notably Peithon
and Seleucus, conspired to kill him, and the war in Egypt
ended,
Ptolemy immediately entered the enemy camp and made
his peace. Subsequently a council of senior officers resolved
to appoint two regents in place of Perdiccas, and the choice
fell on Peithon and Arrhidaeus. 35 The murderer of Perdiccas
and the organizer of Alexander's cortege were associated
in the care of the kings, and, given equal, power, each, would
be a check on the other's ambitions. Ptolemy remained in
Egypt, in all probability with a contingent of Macedonians
to strengthen his satrapal forces. At the same time the army
passed a sentence of death on the most prominent members
of Perdiccas' faction. Those who had turned against him
were of course exempt, but Eumenes was condemned, as
were Alcetas in Pisidia and Attalus, who commanded the
Perdiccan fleet, still intact after the Egyptian campaign.36
In all some fifty Macedonians were sentenced, mostly in
absentia, and between them they controlled a significant
armament. It would not be easy to suppress them. And there
was an additional factor, Antipater. The commanders at
Memphis had acted independently of him, just as Perdiccas
had done at Babylon, and there was no guarantee that he

33
The campaign is vividly described by Diodorus (18.33.1—35.6), on which see
Seibertj Utitcrsuchungen 114—28. What particularly incensed Perdtecas5 troops was
the needless losses by drowning and crocodile attacks (36.2—3).
34
This is attested by Arr. Sitcc. F 1.28 and Diod. 18.33.3. It is a stereotype, con-
trasting with Ptolemy's magananimity and moderation, but there is likely to be
some truth behind the contrast of characters.
35
According to Diod, 18.36-6 Ptolemy might have beet) given the regency but
did not canvass it. There is no hint of this in Arrian's parallel account of the
meeting (Sure. F 1.29-30).
-^ Arr. SMCC. 1.30; Diod. 1.8.37,2—4: Pint. Ewn. 8.1—4; -^P- £*?«//, 5.1; just.
13.8.10.
 Introduction 15
would accept the new dispensation. He had a united army,
little weaker than when it crossed the Hellespont and with-
out doubt containing more Macedonians than the army in
Egypt. There is no record of his reaction to the new regents,
but he certainly held aloof for some time, maintaining his
army in the natural fortress of Cilicia, exactly as Craterus
had done in 323.37
Meanwhile the royal army, with two regents, two kings
and a queen, moved north from Memphis and continued up
the Syrian coast to the great triple game park named
Triparadeisus, near the sources of the River Orontes, to the
north of the Bekaa Valley.38 Antipater had been summoned
to court, as had Antigonus, who had been operating in
Cyprus, but neither, it seems, had arrived when the army
reached Triparadeisus. By then the royal army had become a
mutinous rabble. The Macedonians, particularly the elite
Silver Shields, demanded the donatives which Alexander
had promised them at Opis, long ago in 324, and their truc-
ulent mood was exacerbated by Queen Eurydice who agitated
against the regents and demanded to share the decision-
making with them.39 Antipater now appeared with his army.
He was evidently well aware of the situation at court, and
entered the stage when it had become uncontrollable. Even
before he arrived, he had been proclaimed regent by the
troops after Peithon and Arrhidaeus had abdicated. On
arrival he pitched camp on the bank of the Orontes opposite
to the royal army, and attempted to restore order. However,
he faced the determined opposition of Eurydice who stirred
up the royal troops to fresh demands. Their mood was
hardly sweetened by the appearance of Craterus' veterans
who had already been handsomely rewarded. Accordingly

•^ This delay is not' explicitly attested, but it must have occurred. At the time of
Craterus' death in Asia Minor Antipater was well on his way to Cilicia (Diod.
18.29.7, 33-0- After the new regents were appointed, Antipater was summoned to
the kings, hut when the royal party reached Triparadeisus, it was still some days
before he arrived m camp (Oiod. 18.39.3), The royal army had at least three tirp.es
the disfa.nee to cover frorn .Viemphis, Antipater was certainly not hurrying fo meet it.
38
Strabo 16,2.19 (75°)- 't is usually assumed that Strabo's Faradeisus is the same
as Diodorus' Triparadeisus, So K. Dussaud, Topogrophie historique de la Syrie
antique et medievede 112, accepted in the new Barriegton Atlas,
:
" Arr. Slice. F 1.31—2; Diod. 18.39.3. See further Ch. 3, p. 87,
16 Introduction
Antipater was nearly lynched when he tried to address the
mutinous troops of the royal army and was only saved by
the intervention of Antigonus and Seleucus (who had
commanded the Silver Shields under Alexander). What
happened next is obscure. It is attested that Antipater was
able to calm the unrest and intimidate Eurydice, and it is
most likely that he threatened to use his army, which was
comparatively fresh, against the mutineers. The tension
must have recalled the crisis at Babylon when infantry and
cavalry came close to open hostility. At Triparadeisus the
threat was enough, and Antipater was acclaimed regent a
second time by both armies. Now his powers had a legit-
imacy that Perdiccas could never claim, endorsed as they
were by practically all the Macedonians under arms.
Like Perdiccas, Antipater supervised another distribution
of satrapies. There were few surprises. Most satraps, particu-
larly in the east, were confirmed in office. Otherwise the adher-
ents of Craterus or murderers of Perdiccas were rewarded.
The previous regents received strategic areas: Arrhidaeus
succeeded Leonnatus in Hellespontine Phrygia, while Peithon
was assigned to his former satrapy of Media, probably with an
overriding command in the Iranian highlands. 40 Elsewhere
Seleucus received Babylonia, the nucleus of his future king-
dom; Craterus' admiral, Cleitus, replaced Menander in Lydia,
while the king's brother, Amphtmachus, was appointed to
Mesopotamia.41 The military arrangements are interesting.
Antipater clearly wished to be separated from the mutineers
who had threatened his life, and transferred the 3,000 Silver
Shields to Susa, where they were to relocate the royal treasury
to the coast. The war against the Perdiccan forces in Asia
Minor was assigned to Antigonus, who, as satrap of Phrygia,
was most strategically placed for the campaign, and he
was given charge of the rest of the royal army, which now
predominantly comprised non-Macedonian troops. The
position of chiliarch was retained, and Antipater named
Cassander in place of Seleucus, to command the elite cavalry

40
Diocl 19.14.1. See Ch. 4, n. 27,
41
Arr. Sure. F 1.35; Diod. 18.39.6. See Ch. 4, pp. 113-14.
 Introduction 17
42
squadron and be head of protocol at court. The regent
retained his own army, and along with the kings he accompan-
ied Antigonus into Asia Minor.
The year was now 320, and events at Triparadeisus had
been fatefully protracted. The outlawed commanders in Asia
Minor had been given time to consolidate and recruit local
forces. There were two foci. In Pisidia Alcetas attracted a
number of refugees from the east. The most important was
Perdiccas' admiral and brother-in-law, Attalus, who brought
his fleet from Egypt via Tyre, which he turned into a bas-
tion against the new regime, and brought a considerable
army to Pisidia to reinforce Alcetas. From Babylon Docimus,
appointed satrap by Perdiccas, made his way to Asia Minor,
and by the end of the year he was operating in Alcetas'
camp.43 Eumenes meanwhile had consolidated his own
army, strengthening the loyalty of the Macedonians he had
acquired from Neoptolemus and the formidable contingent of
Cappadocian cavalry that he had levied in 322. Unfortunately
for him, Alcetas and his fellow Macedonian commanders
refused to co-operate, out of jealousy for his success, and the
two groups fought separately against the royal armies. Even
so, Eumenes was no easy target. For the latter part of 320 he
held his own against Antipater and Antigonus. He began
operations in Lydia, in close contact with Cleopatra, but then
moved to occupy Phrygia, outmanoeuvring Antipater and
Antigonus, and the winter of 320/19 saw him in Antigonus'
capital, Celaenae.44 This campaign is very poorly attested and
difficult to follow, but it is clear that there was some discord
between Antipater and Antigonus. Antipater's military per-
formance was dismal; during the winter Eumenes was able to
plunder localities supposedly under his protection without
his intervening. The troops were not impressed, and the
Macedonian veterans had little stomach for fighting their
old comrades serving under Eumenes. Some 3,000 of them
42
Arr, Succ, ¥ 1.38, T'fie chiliarchy was renewed the following year at
Antipater's deathbed (Diod. 18.48.4-5; Plut. Phor.. 31,1).
43
Arr, SIKC. F 24.3—5; Plut. Bum. 8.8; Diod. 18.45,3. ^ec also the Goteborg
palimpsest (Ch. 3, p. 88). Cf, Billows, A.ntigonos 382—3, no. 35.
44
Plut. Ettm. 8.7. I have attempted to reconstruct this campaign in my essay
'History and Artifice' 56—89.
18 Introduction
deserted, and forced their repatriation to Macedonia.45
Added to that there was discord between Cassander and
Antigonus, which was resolved by Antipater's decision to
withdraw to Macedon with the kings and leave the campaign
in Asia Minor exclusively with Antigonus, For that he gave
him the bulk of the army which had crossed with him into
Asia, no less than 8,500 Macedonian infantry and half the
cavalry and elephants,
Together with the remnants of the royal army which fell
under his command at Triparadeisus, these forces gave
Antigonus an overwhelming superiority over both the enemy
camps. For all his tactical genius Eumenes was forced into
two battles early in 319, and lost most of his army by death
or desertion. By the end of spring he was undergoing siege in
the fortress of Nora, in southern Cappadocia, and capitula-
tion was only a matter of time. The defeat of Alcetas followed,
as Antigonus stormed west into Pisidia and overwhelmed the
modest army there. Alcetas fled to Termessus, where he was
eventually killed and his body surrendered to Antigonus; his
lieutenants were for the most part taken alive and sent to close
confinement in a mountain fortress in the Taurus,
By the summer of 319 Antigonus was by far the most power-
ful figure east of Macedonia, with an army that comprised
most Macedonian troops who were serving in Asia. It is
hardly surprising that the sources allege he already had
designs on supremacy, for in military terms he was already
supreme.46 Antipater had virtually abandoned Asia, now
that he was back in Pella with the kings in his power, and he
had returned weakened from the chequered campaign he had
fought. By the autumn of 319 he was dead, and before his
death he had nominated his friend Polyperchon to succeed him
as regent, passing over his own son, Cassander, who remained
chiliarch. It was a controversial decision, bitterly resented
by Cassander, and within a few months he had fled from
Macedonia, taking refuge with Antigonus, who was happy
enough to support his feud with Polyperchon. Antigonus him-
self deployed his massive army to expel Arrhidaeus from

45
Poiyacn, 4.6.6. See Ch. 3, p. 90,
46
Set Diod, 18.41,4—5, 47.5, 50.2; Plut. Earn. 12.1.
 Introduction ig
Hellespontine Phrygia and Clcitus from I^ydia. This he
achieved in the summer of 318, Since Caria was in the hands
of his friend and ally Asander, he effectively controlled Asia
Minor from the Hellespont to the Cilician Gates. He had the
resources to invade Europe, and the pretext to do so in the
person of Cassander. Eumenes had become an irrelevant
nuisance, and Antigonus came to terms with him at Nora,
releasing him from the siege in return for acknowledgement
of his supremacy. As a free agent, Eumenes was open to
offers of employment from early 318, and he was approached
by Polyperchon to act as royal general and to take command
of the Silver Shields. Three distinct theatres of war were now
developing: Polyperchon was espousing the cause of demo-
cracy and attempting to remove the oligarchies in southern
Greece that remained loyal to Cassander; in Asia Antigonus
was occupied by land and sea in the Propontis and Lydia; and
Eumenes was gathering forces in Cappadocia.
Here we may leave this outline sketch. The scene is set for
the more detailed discussion in the central chapters of the
book, which amount to a history of the period between 318
and 311. The epic duel between Antigonus and Eumenes is
treated at length in Chapter 4, and the story is taken further in
Chapter 6, which covers events between 316 and 311, when
Seleucus established his regime in Babylon.

3, THE BASES OF K N O W L E D G E

The two decades after Alexander's death are comparatively

rich in source material. There is a moderate scatter of docu-
mentary evidence. A number of important Greek inscrip-
tions shed light on the relations between the city-states and
the ruling dynasts; Athens supplies a rich crop, increasing in
volume after the restoration of (limited) democracy in 307.
From Babylonia we have a considerable number of cuneiform
documents, most of them economic,47 and the archives have
47
The documents (other than the financial texts) are conveniently assembled
and edited with translation and commentary by G, V, Del Monte, Testi daila
Babilonia- .Kllenistica I . See pow the very useful doctoral thesis by Torn Boiy,
'Laatachaemerudiseh en heifenssttseh Babylon 5 (Katboheke Umversitekj Leuven
2000) csp. 128-38.
2O Introduction
yet to be systematically explored. However, even in our
present incomplete state of knowledge, the complex dating
system under the regnal years of Philip 111, Antigonus,
Alexander IV, and Seleucus has recently been elucidated,
Egypt, has been less fruitful, with a comparative dearth of
material from the early Ptolemaic period, but there is at least
one document of prime importance, the so-called stele of the
satrap.48 Documentation of a different kind is provided by
the coins. Increasing hoard evidence is refining our know-
ledge of the dating and distribution of the multifarious royal
emissions.
These individual pieces of evidence shed single beams of
light. They need to be set in a chronological and contextual
framework, which is a feasible prospect. The sequence of
rulers and regnal years is relatively well established. There are
several king lists from Babylonia, which cohere with the lists
compiled much later by Porphyry of Tyre and incorporated
in Eusebius' Chronicle,49 Other chronicles give year by year
records of events. From the Greek side the most important is
the Parian Marble, which contains a year by year account of
key events, dated by the archon at Athens.50 The stone itself
is mutilated, and the notes are laconic, but it does give the
main events between 323 and 302/1. It was compiled in
264/3, only half a century after the events, but its accuracy is
distinctly variable, thanks in part to the difficulty of adapt-
ing the calendar and campaign year to the Athenian archon
year, which began in midsummer. Events can be dated a year
too late. From Babylonia comes a very different document.

4S
See Ch. 6, pp. 241-2.
49
The principal Babylonian documents are the Uruk king list (Ba.V! Beih, 11
88= Del Monte 207), a list from Babylon (Iraq id, pi, 53 = Del Monte 208-9) and
the so-called Saros Canon (ZA 10 66—7 —Z,.j8/f T 1428). The relevant fragments of
Porphyry arc most easily consulted in /*'GV.£f 240 F z (1—2), 3 {1—9}. They come
from the Armenian version of Kusebius' Chronicle (on the test and its history see
A. A, Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius ewW Greek Oht'vnQgraphic Tradition
(ILondon 1979} 41—65); jacohy uses the German translation of Josef Karst
(Mosshammcr 58—60).
50
The most convenient text is that of jacoby, in FGrfi 239: translations with
brief annotation are to be found in M, \I. Austin, The Hellenistic World from
Alexander to the Rom&n Conquest (Cambridge 1981) 8—9, 39—41 and Phtlhp Harding,
From the End of the Peloftonnesictn War /<> the Battle of Ipsus (Cambridge 1985} T—6.
 Introduction 21
51
the so-called Chronicle of the Successors, This is con-
tained on a fragmentary cuneiform tablet now in the British
Museum, and lists events between the fourth year of Philip III
(320/19) and the eighth year of Alexander IV (309/8). Like
the Parian Marble this is a fragmentary text, and its inter-
pretation is extraordinarily difficult. Much of the detail
concerns internal events in Babylon, for which the Chronicle
provides the only evidence, and the references to events in
the west are brief and enigmatic. The tablet becomes more
informative on the reverse, which deals with the period
between 311 and the late summer of 309. Between these
dates the tablet documents a major war in Babylonia between
Antigonus and Seleucus which has left practically no trace in
the Greek tradition, 52 a melancholy indication of how defect-
ive our historical knowledge must be.
The contextual, framework for these years is provided by
the narrative histories of the period. Of these by far the most
important are Books 18—20 of Diodorus Siculus. These give
a continuous record of events from the death of Alexander to
the eve of the Battle of Ipsus at the end of the archon year
302/1. Book 18 is unusually expansive and cohesive. It deals
with the period between 323 and 318, and is devoted entirely
to events in Greece and the east; there is no reference
to Sicilian affairs, which only resume in book 19 with
Agathocles* rise to power in Syracuse. From that point the
narrative regularly switches from west to east, as is the case
elsewhere in Diodorus, but in the separate theatres of action
his narrative remains detailed and lucid.53 It is universally
acknowledged that these books are a high point for Diodorus.
They contrast with the rhetorical, sensational treatment of
Alexander's reign in Book 17, and present a wealth of detail:
troop numbers and dispositions, satrapal appointments,

*! BM 36313 + 34660. first published by Sidney Smith, Babvlomnn Hisloncti]

T'exl-s (London 1924) 124—49. The standard edition £& at present A. K. Grayson,
/Issynan and Babylonian Chronicler (Locust Valley, NY 1975) 115—19, no,. 10.
Del Monte 183-94 gives an improved text, taking account of the join made by
L L. Finkel. Cornelia Wunseh has been working on a new edition of the text, which
I trust she will publish, and T have made use of some of her readings.
•" See Ch. 6, pp. 217-18, 244—5.
'-' This is rightly emphasized by Jane llornblower, Hieronyntus, especially 32-9,
a seetion entitled 'The homogeneity of Hooks XVIll-XX'.
22 Introduction
political events in Athens and elsewhere. Documents are
quoted, such as the text of Alexander's Exiles Decree or
Polyperchon's edict of 318, authorizing a second restoration.54
Above all there is constant discussion of the motives of the
leading dynasts, and the narrative is noticeably written from
a court perspective.
For the years between 323 and 319 Diodorus is supple-
mented by the remains of the history of the Successors
written by L. Flavins Arrianus (Arrian). The author is best
known for his extant History of Alexander, but he also wrote
a much more expansive account of events after Alexander's
death (TO. ftera 'A\e£avSpov) which devoted no less than ten
books to the five years after Alexander. This history has
survived through the precis of Photius, who gave a very
patchy sketch of its contents, ranging from almost verbatim
reproduction to the most extreme contraction. Some frag-
mentary pieces of the original have survived on papyrus and
palimpsest, and the wealth of detail is staggering, the few
mutilated extracts providing us with a mass of uniquely
attested material. 53 This was a complex work, which, if the
Alexander history is any guide, is likely to have been taken
from a number of selected sources and embellished by
highly rhetorical speeches as well as extensive moralizing
digressions. However, it is clear that Arrian shared material
with Diodorus and there is a very considerable overlap
between their narratives, most clearly revealed in their
accounts of the distributions at Triparadeisus which contain
the same names in the same order and with much the same
explanatory material.56 Both clearly followed a common
source extremely faithfully.
54
K. Rosen, Acta Classica 10 (1967) 41-94, listed over seventy references to
documents in these books, See also llotnblower, Hieronvni.us 37—9, *3t—7,
5;;
The standard edition is the Teubner text of A, G, Roos, Flavms Arnawus //;
Scripta Minvra et Fragment® (2nd edn. rev. Gerhard Wirth: Stuttgart 1967)
253—86. It contains the Vatican palimpsest fragments (P 24—5) with. RODS' personal
readings, and Wirth adds a full text of the Florentine papyrus (PS! XII no, 1284)
at pp. 323—4. jaeoby, FGt'H 156 also prints the fragments known to 1926, but
exeludes many that are not explicitly attributed to Arria.n. The best edition (with
photographs) of the new Goteborg palimpsest is provided by B. Drcyer, ZPE 125
(1999) 39-66, A. Simonettt Agostinettt, Flavio /t.rnano: gli eventi dopo Alessandro
provides text, translation, and brief eornrnentary. There is an English translation
with patchy commentary by Walter J. Goralski, AncW 19 (1989) 81—108.
56
Arr. Sure, F 1.34-8; Diod. 18.39.5-7,
 Introduction 23
Alongside Photius* epitome of Arrian we have his brief
digest of the four-book history of events after Alexander by
P. Herennius Dexippus, which was written about a century
after Arrian and (according to Photius) was largely in agree-
ment with him. Apart from some fragments of rhetoric which
seem Thucydidean pastiches we only have Photius' reproduc-
tion of his list of appointments at Babylon, which follows
Arrian with some errors and variants.57 A more extended
epitome is Justin's digest of the Philippic History of Pompeius
Trogus, which was written in the Augustan period,58 Out of
the 44 books of Trogus* work three (13-15) covered the
period between the deaths of Alexander and Cassander
(323-297), and they clearly contained much of value, in par-
ticular an account of the origins of the Mauryan dynasty in
India. However, Justin is as capricious an epitomator as
Photius and tends to be at his fullest when the material is most
sensational. The greater part of Trogus is lost, and much
that Justin digests is contracted to the point of unintelligibil-
ity; but when he is more expansive, as in his account of
events in Babylon, he can be a valuable supplement. Finally
in this category there is the so-called Heidelberg Epitome,
an anonymous work in a late mediaeval manuscript, which
deals with the succession of guardians after Alexander's
death and gives a sketchy account of the early wars.59 It has
affinities with Diodorus, but it rarely adds anything to our
knowledge.
We also possess various biographies. The most important
are Plutarch's Lives, the Eumenes, Demetrius and Pyrrhus. It
is the first two that concern us in this book.60 Both give very
57
The fragments can he found in Jacoby, FGi-tl too F 8. 31-6. Roos 253—8
prints Photius' digests of Dexippus and Arrian in parade! columns.
5)>
On Trogus' life and work sec now J. C, Yardley and Waldemar Heckel,,7u-sft'»,
Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus Books 11—12 1—41. A ccmtinua-
tion dealing with Books 13—15 is forthcoming (there is already a commentary in
Dutch by R. NL M. Boersrna, Jastititis' boeken over de Diadochen, een historisch com-
mtntar (Amsterdam 1979)). Yardley has published a fine translation of the whole of
Justin, with introduction and explanatory notes by R, Develin (APA Classical
Resources Series, no. 3: Atlanta, Ga. 1994)-
SJ
' The text is most conveniently found in Jacoby, FGrH 155. For literature see
Seibert, Das Zeitalterder Diadochen 53-4-
60 The Eumenes as yet has no commentary (see, however, Bosworth, 'I Iistory and
Artifice'), There are annotated editions of the Demetnus by E. Marmi (Florence
1953) and C). Andrei (Milan 1988).
24 Introduction
detailed pictures of their subject, richly embellished by
anecdote. But they can hardly be termed works of history.
They are carefully patterned to compare and contrast with
their parallel Roman Lives: Eumenes is the counterpart of
Sertorius, the strategically gifted exile who was betrayed by
his own men, while Demetrius is set alongside Antony as the
paradigm of brilliant promise undermined by arrogance and
self-indulgence. Plutarch clearly deploys a range of sources
for illustrative material and has no hesitation in adapting
their content to conform with his portrait. He also omits
major events if he does not consider them germane to his
biography; the great battle of Paraetacene is passed over
altogether and Demetrius' victory at Salamis is contracted
to a single sentence—it is the capture of his mistress Lamia
and the assumption of the royal diadem that engages his
interest/ 72 However, for all the embroidery it is apparent that
Plutarch operates with much of the material that is used by
Diodorus. In the Eumenes especially, the two accounts often
run parallel, and there are verbal correspondences which
cannot be fortuitous. 3
The extant historical sources display a pattern comparable
to the so-called "Alexander Vulgate'. That is a convenient label,
for the common material found in large segments of Diodorus
17, Curtius Rufus, Justin and Plutarch's Alexander, which is
most plausibly ascribed to Cleitarchus of Alexander.64 There
is a similar phenomenon in the histories of the Successors.
There is a good deal of material common to Diodorus, the
remains of Arrian, Plutarch, Justin, and the Heidelberg
Epitome, and all seem to be drawing on a common source. 65
(
" See Andrei's Introduction, csp. 36—42; C. B, R. felling, Plutarch Anton);
18-26.
62
Dfinetr. 16.3 (sea battle), 16,4-7 (Lamia), 17.2-18.1 (assumption of diadem),
^ For examples sec Ch. 4, nn. 185, 1.96. The most famous is probably the
remarfeable statement about the age of the Silver Shields: not a man under 60 and
many over 70 (Diod. 19.41.2; Plut. Bum. 16.7; cf. Hombtower, Hieronymus 192-3),
64
For a short explanation of the "Vulgate' see Boswortb in /I./, it! Fuel and
Fiction 6—8,
^ On Diodorus and and the extent of his usage of I {teronymus the fundamental
text is now Hombiower, Hieronymus, in particular 18-75, 2&3""79> which is
indebted to (but supersedes). Felix Jacoby's classic treatment in Pauly—Wissowa
(R,E viii 1540—61 — GnechMche Histonker (Stuttgart 1956) 245—56). See also the
shorter, somewhat seepfical discussion by Paul Goukowsky in the introduction
 Introduction 25
That source is almost universally identified as Hieronymus
of Cardia, the friend, fellow citizen, and possibly relative
of the great Eumenes.66 As it happens, our knowledge of
Hieronymus* career is mostly known from Diodorus, who
refers four times to crucial episodes in his career, and on each
occasion refers to him as 'the author of the Histories'/'7 What
is more, the references occur within the historical narrative,
and it is difficult to evade the conclusion that Diodorus
is preserving autobiographical material provided by his
primary source, which he then identifies as the historian,
Hieronymus, moreover, played a fairly central role in events.
He negotiated with both Antipater and Antigonus to procure
Eumenes' release from Nora: he was wounded and captured
at the Battle of Gabiene, taken into Antigonus' entourage,
and supervised the harvesting of bitumen in the Dead Sea
with dubious success. Later, in 293, he served as harmost of
Thebes for Demetrius, and had close relations with his son,
Antigonus Gonatas. He lived, it is attested, to the grand old
age of 104, retaining all his faculties and his health until the
last.68 His history may have been as long as his life; at least
the sophisticated Dionysius of Halicarnassus opined that,
given its inferior style, no one could bear to read it to the
end.60 It certainly covered a vast span, from (it seems) the
(pp. XX—xxiv) of his Budfi edition of Diodorus 18 (Paris 1978), and K. .VIeister, Die
griechische (jeschichisscht'eibung row den /Iti/ar/gen his sum Ende fhs Helleiiismus 124—6.
*'* This was denied by F. Kanducci Gattinoni, liwigilata Lucernis 3-4 (1981-2)
13—26, on the grounds that the frank treatment of the ambitions of A.ntigoeus the
One~Kyed would not ha.ve been palatable to his grandson, Gonaias, who was
Hieronymus' patron at the time he published his history. On this see, Hornblower,
Hieronymus 170-1, arguing (after T. S. Brown, American Historical Review 52
(1947) 694—5) lhat Goriirtas may have shared his grandfather's aspirations but
disapproved of his obsessive pleonexiai and so 'Ilieronymus censured in
\Jonophtha!mus not his objectives but his methods.'
*7 Dtod. 18.42.1, 50.4; 19.44,3, ioo.i-T,—FGrH 154 T 3—6. The model was
probably Thueydides, who identified himself at Arnpbipolis as the author of the
history (Thise, 4.104.4: os roSc ^wey^eu/fe). Landueci Gattinoni (above, n. 66) 15—17
denies that first three passages came from Hieronymus himself, on the ground that
they depict him in at best an ambiguous light. He is certainly said to have taken
money from Antigonus to open negotiations with Aotigonus (Oiod. 18.50.4), ^ll^
the gifts may have been represented as a mark of Antigonus' esteem: there is no hint
that Hieronymus had deserted Eumenes at this stage.
'* [Luc.] Macr, 22, on the authority of Agatharchides of Cnidus (FGrH 86 F 4).
ft!
* Dion. Hal, De comp. wrb* 4, line 112 (Usenet and Radermaeher) — JFGr.H 154
T o. Hieronymus is one of a very numerous erop of historians indieted for their
26 Introduction
70
death of Alexander to at least the death of Pyrrhus 50 years
later, in 272. This was contemporary history, written by a
major actor in events who served with Eumenes until his
death and then lived in the court of successive Antigonid
monarchs, incurring criticism for his excessively favourable
treatment of Gonatas.71 It is by far the most likely hypo-
thesis that he provided Diodorus with the bulk of his material
for events outside Sicily and Italy in Books 18—20, and his
intimate contact with the rulers of the da}' explains the mass
of detail and the court perspective. Presumably Hieronymus,
like Thucydides, collected information on events as they
happened and was involved in historical activity, if not its lit-
erary shaping, throughout his adult life, and was as close to
the defining events and the principal actors in them as any
historian of antiquity. His work was politically and militarily
informative, and it also contained a rich spectrum of digres-
sions, geographical, antiquarian and ethnographical. It was
not free from bias, and perhaps, like all great histories, it
contained a subtle subtext, insinuating the author's political
and moral attitudes into the primary narrative.72
Diodorus cannot be treated as a reflecting mirror of
Hieronymus.7S He need not be using Hieronymus exclusively.
Some passages of his narrative are so complimentary to
Ptolemy that it has been argued that he turned on occasion to
an encomiastic writer in the Ptolemaic entourage, and there is
a recent suggestion that he also drew on an encomium of
Eumenes quite separate from Hieronymus.74 Even when he

miserable diction and including such diverse figures as Phylarchus and his prm™
eipal critic, Polybius.
/a
Richard Billows ha.s recently argued that there was an introductory section,
giving a coverage of Alexander's reign, 'no doubt fuller for the later years' (Al. in
Pact and Fiction 300-5).
7<
Pays. 1.9,8 — jPGVH 154 ¥ 9: Hteronymus 'has the reputation5 (^xKi- §o^«£<) of
hostility to other kings and of unjustly favouring Gonafas. Ct. Ilornblower,
Hieronymus 246—8. "z I explore this topic fully in Ch. 5,
7
^ On his techniques and his personal contribution see Kenneth S. Sacks, in
Simon 1 iombfower (ed.), Greek Histori&graphv 213—32,
?
* On the hypothesised Ptolemaic source see R. Schubert, Die Quellen zur
Geschichte der Diadochenzeit 184—7; Scibert, Untersuchungen 82-3; Uornblower,
Hiei'ftny-mus 50—6, A Hhodian source has also heen posited; 1 liller von Gaertringen,
SKBerlin 36 (191.8) 752—62; Uornblower, Hieronvmus 56—60, 280—1. For the
encomiastic biography of Kurnenes see K. A. Itadley, Hutona 50 (2001) 3—33. In
 Introduction 27
resumes Hieronymus directly, his choice of material can he
capricious. His narrative may become excessively contracted,
an inevitable danger when boiling down a much longer work;
one need only compare the detail in the palimpsest remains of
Arrian's History of the Successors. There are also startling
omissions, almost a whole year of action, for instance, after
the conference at Triparadeisus, and events may be reported
out of context, like the single enigmatic sentence on the
naval engagements of the Lamian War which comes in with-
out, any report of the preceding campaign and ignores the
sequel.73 None the less, when we can compare his narrative
with other sources, he appears to have been conscientious in
repeating the substance of what he chooses to excerpt. As a
result Hieronymus has come down to us as a far more
rounded figure than any other historian of the period, and
we know infinitely more about his work than any other
attested history of the Successors.
Historians other than Hieronymus are on record and were
certainly used by some of out extant sources, but it is almost
impossible to track down more than the occasional indirect
citation. Duris of Samos is known to have written a universal
history beginning in 370/69 with the death of Amyntas I I I of
Macedon and continuing until the death of Lysimachus.76
Athenaeus used him as a source of exotic detail like the
personal habits of Demetrius of Phalerum or the famous
Athenian ithyphallic which hymns the godhead of
Demetrius,77 Plutarch refers to him in a number of Lives,
including the Eurnenes,7® but the bulk of the references come
from the Alexander period.79 There are traces in the
contrast, I. lj, .Vlerker, A.HB 2 (lyHS) 90—3, argues that Diodorus worked directly
from Hieronymus alone.
7S
Diod. 18. i5,9. On this passage see my discussion in my article cited above, n, 20.
~'i'* Diod. 15.60.6 = /"'&'*•// 76 T 5. On the work of Duris see (in brief) Mcister (above,
n. 55) 96-100. There are monographs by R. B, Kebric, In the Shadow of Macedon:
Duris of Santos and L. Torraca, Duride di Santo La ntaschera scenica nella storiografia
elletmttc®. "^ Athcn. 12. 542 B—E™FGi'H 76 ¥ 10; Athen. 6.253 ^)~~^-
7
* Emu. i.i (paternity of EumcnesJ—FGrH 76 I753> FjO-i conic from the. Phaeton,
79
It has recently been argued that Duris along with Cleitarchus was a primary
source for Diodorus fj (L. Prandt, Fnrtuna e realta dell'opera di CKtarco 125—6,
138—40. It has often been maintained that Duns' work, including his monograph
on Agafhocles (F r(>-2r, 56—9) was the source ot much of the Sicilian history in
Diodorus 19—20.
28 Introduction
0
Demetrius^ but one can hardly prove that he was a major
source for Plutarch. His use of sources is so eclectic that
without a control it is impossible to track down material that
is not explicitly identified. Duris, we feel, must have made an
impact on the extant tradition, but we have no way of defin-
ing it. The same may be said of the Athenian historians
Diyllus and Demochares. Diyllus is known to have written a
general history of the period 356 to 297, and the 26 books
of it must have given a generous coverage of the generation
after Alexander's death. As for Demochares, the nephew of
Demosthenes, it is known that he wrote a general history
which dealt with Demetrius' second regime at Athens
(294-288) in Books 20-21.8z Polybius attests that he was bit-
terly hostile to Demetrius of Phalerum, and Athenaeus
details his criticism of the honours offered to Demetrius the
Besieger. But that is the almost the sunn of it.8;i Our know-
ledge of the period from Alexander's death down to Ipsus
comes predominantly from Hieronymus, as digested by
Diodorus. Our debt to him becomes apparent when we look at
the period after 301 when we know his work only from sparse
extracts. The half-light of Books 18—20 fades into almost total
eclipse, and what knowledge we have is based on Plutarch,
Justin, and Pausanias supplemented by considerable but
capricious inscriptional evidence. If we have any sort of
history of the years after Alexander (and many other periods),
we owe it to Diodorus, who has arguably contributed more to
our knowledge than any historian of antiquity.

50
Set" Ch. S> >">• 132.
51
DioO. 16,14.5, 7bA, 21.5 (fr'GtH 73 '1* 1-3). Only three fragments of Diyllus
survive and give no hint of the character of his work. The fact that Diodorus records
most of what we know of it encouraged Hammond to identify Diyllus as a major
source for Diodorus' narrative of Alexander (J'/ir^e Historians of Alexander the
Great, esp. 160-5).
8~ We do not know7 the dimensions of the work. Not surprisingly, Demochares
dealt with the death of his uncle in 322 (Pint. Dem. yo.^^FGfH 75 p 3), and he
treated the events of 291 in Book 3,1 (Athen. 6.253 n—1> = F2). It reached at least to
the death of Agathocies ([Luc.] Macr. io = F 5).
83
There is little point pursuing even more shadowy figures stich as Nyniphis of
1 leracleia (FGrH 153), who is alleged to have written an extensive (22-book) history
of Alexander, the Diadochi and the Kpigoni f Suda* s.v. Nvji$is = T i). Of this only-
one dubious fragment survives (Ae1. NA 17,3 — F 17), discoursing upon the
mammoth vipers and tortoises in the land of the Troglodytes.
 2
The Politics of the Babylon
Settlement

No previous event in Macedonian history was anything like

the Babylon Settlement.' There had been succession crises
aplenty, hut all had been significantly different. Reigning
kings had left living sons. They may have been immature
boys (like Archelaus' son, Orestes),2 but at least they were
there-—as usually was a plethora of males of the Argead
house. The problems had arisen from an oversupply of poten-
tial kings.3 What is more, the succession to the throne had
been played out within the boundaries of Macedon, in the
traditional heartland of the kingdom. Alexander himself had
come to power in the old capital of Aegae, with the entire
nobility around him and the armed forces united in
Macedonia, His accession may have been bloody, but the
circumstances did not favour a protracted crisis. Rivals and
potential rivals who were close at hand were quickly elimin-
ated,4 and he was able to achieve recognition in Macedon
and stamp his authority on the League of Corinth within a

1
The older bibliography is summarized in J. Seibert, 0tf,« ZeitalU'r der
Dtddochen 84—9, Hit'1 most useful items arc: R. M. Krnngton,jfffS 90 (1970) 49—77;
Schachcrmeyr, Al. in Babylon. Newer contributions include: Billows, Antigonos
esp. 49-59; A. B. Bosworth, CO 43 (1993) 420-7; K. M, Krrtngton, A History of
.Hfticcdon'ia 1.14—20; N. €*. L. libifrnnond, Tin.' Macedonian Stale. 237—43.; S1!fc" «^so
HM 01.98-107; K. M. Martin, AJAH 8 (1983 [1987]) 161-90; ~E. M. Anson,
CPh 87 (1992) 38-43; P, McKcclinie, Historia 48 (1999) 44-60,
2
Died. 14.37.6 (vats tar)', he was promptly murdered by his guardian, Acropus.
•^ Arnyntas 111, for instance, left three sons by his wife Eurydice, and three more
by a second wife, Gygaea, All three sons by iBurydtee were to reign in their own
right: one of the sons of Gygaea was executed by Philip 11 and the other two fled to
Olynthus (just. 8.3.10; cf, J. R. Ellis, Historia 22 (1973) 350-4; G. T. Griffith in
HM 11.699—701). There were other Argeads in contention (Argaeus and Pausanias),
who emerged to challenge Philip I! in the tumultuous year after his accession
(HM ii.2o8).
4
These included his cousin, Amyntas son of Perdiccas, and two Lyncesttan
princes (cf. Arr, 1.25.1—2; Curt. 7.1.5—6; just. 11.2.1—3). ^or background see
Bosworth, (.'Gnguffst and Empire 25—8: Badian, in AL in l^cict and Fiction 54—6,
3<3 The Politics of the Babylon Settlement
matter of weeks. The only serious problem of distance involved
the expeditionary force in Asia Minor. Alexander had to
resort to the diplomacy of treachery to dispose of his chief
enemy, Attalus.5 In 323 those problems must have seemed
insignificant. There was no direct issue to the deceased king.
His wife was six (or eight) months pregnant.6 There was no
guarantee that the offspring would be male, still less that
it would survive and thrive. An object lesson had already
been given late in 326 when a son born to Rhoxane had died
shortly after birth, 7 and, given the prevailing infant mortal-
ity, few people would have had any confidence that the preg-
nancy would result in a healthy male child. There remained
Alexander's surviving son, Heracles, but he was not regarded
as a legitimate heir, given that his mother, Barsine, was never
more than a royal concubine.8 The only other Argead in
contention was the surviving son of Philip 11, Arrhidaeus,
but his attested psychiatric disorder meant that he could
never rule as a king in his own right.9
The paucity of acceptable Argeads was exacerbated by
problems of distance. When Alexander died, his court was

^ Oiod. 17.2-4—6, 5.2; Curt, 7.1.3. Alexander's Bgcnt, Heeataeus, colluded with
Atiiilys' Ujl!(>w general mitt lathiT-in-lnw, the great Parmenion,
6
Curt. 10,6.9 (six months); Just. 13.2.5 (eight months).
^ Meiz EpiL 30, 'ilits is the only source, but the information is credible enough,
See Bosworth, in /I/, in Fact and Fiction t \~-tz.
8
On the status of Barsine see Plut. Al. 21.8—9, citing Aristobulus (FGrti 139 K 11);
Emu, 1,7. Ac Alexander's death she and her son wen; in residence at Pergamum
(just, 13.2.0; Diod, 20.20,1),
9
There is no point in attempting a diagnosis (see, most recently, Elizabeth
Carney, AHB 15 (2001) 63-89, arguing at length that Arrhidaeus suffered 'mild"
retardation, requiring intermittent support in social interaction). The ancient
sources are vague: Oiott, 18.2.2 speaks vaguely of incurable psychiatric disorders,
and other sources are no more specific (App. Syr. 52.261; Porphyry, .KGW/ 260
P 3.2), The Heidelberg Epitome (FGrff 155 F i .2) terms him 'sluggish, and further-
more epileptic". Justin's reference at 13.2.11 to his 'valetudo maior' has also been
interpreted as epilepsy since Freinsheim's day (cf. Apul. Apol. 50; Kestus 268.14
(Mndsay); Cels, /}<? wied. 3.23,1)), f IcAvever, the one description of him in action
suggests a disturbance more complex than simple epilepsy (Plut, Phoc. 33.5—7),
which in itself would have been unlikely to disqualify him from the kingship.
Plutarch's allegation (Al. 77,8) that Olympias destroyed bis mind with drugs falls in
the same category of doubt as other anecdotes about malevolent stepmothers,
but presupposes serious mental disorder. But Arrhidaeus* psychological condition
became the subject of political propaganda (see below, pp. 41 t'f.), and that has
irredeemably polluted the source tradition. We can no more tell whether he was
clinically mad. or simply retarded ttvan we can whether Alexander was poisoned.
 The Politics of the Babylon Settlement 31
located in Babylon along with a majority of marshals, includ-
ing the seven known Bodyguards. But that was not the only
centre of power. In Macedon the regent Antipater adminis-
tered the kingdom and controlled the armed forces which
remained there. Little or nothing is known of his court and
the figures of influence (other than his numerous sons), but
there must have been a coterie of powerful nobles who had
remained in Macedon throughout the reign, many of them
survivors from Philip's day, and they will have had their
views on the succession. But the most important single
group outside Babylon was based in Cilicia. This was led
by Alexander's senior general, Craterus, the most successful
commander on the staff and phenomenally popular with his
men.10 With him were over 10,000 veterans destined for
repatriation in Macedonia, who formed the most efficient
fighting force in the empire, superior in numbers at least to
the Macedonian troops left in Babylon." Craterus had
a commission to replace Antipater as regent in Macedonia
and also had written instructions to operate in Cilicia,12
where a vast armament was being assembled in anticipation
of Alexander's campaigns in the west; and the necessary
resources had been concentrated in the treasuries of the area,
in particular the fortress of Cyinda.' 3 If, then, Craterus had
wished to fight for the kingship (and we are told that he
affected regal dress),14 he'd got the ships, he'd got the men,
he'd got the money too, not to mention legitimation from the
dead king, if he wished to establish himself in power in
Macedon. He had his lieutenants, a mini-court which could
almost challenge the constellation at Babylon. With him
E0
On Craterus' career see Hecfeel 107—33. ^s popularity is strikingly attested
(Arr, Succ. V ig = Suda s,v. Kparepos; Pfut. Rum. 6.1—3, Demetr. 14.2-3). After his
death in 3*1 his bones were carefully preserved by Kumcncs (as a talisman?) and
surrendered to IMS wife Phiia for buna! in 315 (Diod. 19,59.3—6).
" Pot" the figures and their implications see below, pp. 73—5.
" Diod. 18.4.1, 12.1. For discussion see Boswortli, From Arrian to Alexander
208—10.
1
3 PQT J£S history and importance see j. B. Bing, Hist&ria zz (1973) 346—50. Even
after Kumeries had exploited its resources in 318 (Diod. 18.63,2; Strab. 14.5.10
(672)) some 10,000 talents remained for Antigonus in late 316 (Diod. 19.56.5).
Later still Antigonus paid, his army for three months out of the money he took from
Cymda for the campaign of Ipsus (Diod. 20.108.2).
14
Arr. Succ. F 19.
32 The Politics of the Babylon Settlement
was a senior cavalry commander, Cleitus the White, and at
least three commanders of phalanx regiments: Folyperchon,
Gorgias and Antigenes.15 Given this dispersion of com-
manders, men, and resources it would be fatuous to imagine
that any provision for the succession that was made in
Babylon would necessarily command assent or would remain
unchanged. Why for instance should arrangements brokered
at Babylon by Perdiccas and the Bodyguards be thought to
be binding in Macedon? They might be approved by the
Macedonian forces there, at a pinch, but both Antipater and
Craterus had their own Macedonians who might give vocal
support to alternative arrangements presented to them. For
all we know, they did so. Our evidence is limited to events in
Babylon, and nothing has survived of any description of the
reception of Alexander's death in either Macedon or Cilicia.
As always, we have only a fragment of the jigsaw.
The situation, then, was constitutionally unique and polit-
ically complex. In that light it comes as quite a shock to read
much of the traditional literature on the Settlement. It pre-
supposes that there was something akin to statute law, with
fixed positions and procedures for a regency, and deals with
a single definitive settlement, which was reached at Babylon
and agreed by all the diverse players in the dynastic game.16
In fact there was constant intrigue, constant negotiation, and
constant compromise. We have evidence for that process
within the narrow context of Babylon, and there is every
reason to assume that it continued after Perdiccas achieved
predominance there. Negotiations would have continued
between Perdiccas, Craterus, and Antipater, and they are
fairly well attested.1'7 We hear of Perdiccas' marital overtures

15
Arr. 7.11.4; Just, 12,12.8. Justin also mentions a Polydamas, who may well
have been the Polydamas responsible for the murder of Parmenion (Berve ii
no. 648; 1 ieckel 359—61), Alexander had every reason to he quit of him. There is no
record of any senior command that he may have held in the last years of the reign.
sff
See Seibert's bibliography (above, n. i). The most clear-cut recent defence of
'constitutionalism* is presented by N. G. L. I lammmxl, in HM )h.g$—iGb (see aJso
The J^iacadonia'n State 237—43). I have studied the complex views of Fritz
Schachcrmcyr and the development of his views on the Succession in AJAH 13
(1988)57-9."
17
One very important intermediary may have been Cassander, Antipater's eldest
son. There is no record of his presence at Babylon at the time of Alexander's death,
 The Politics of the Babylon Settlement 33
to Antipatcr, designed to reconcile the regent in Macedonia
to Ferdiccas* de facto usurpation of power in Asia.'8 There
will also have been a diplomatic traffic between Perdieeas and
Craterus, and for this we have indirect evidence, Antigenes,
a phalanx commander sent off with Craterus in 324, is later
attested in the entourage of Perdieeas. He commanded the
elite Silver Shields during the invasion of Egypt and was
instrumental in Perdieeas' murder.'9 The name is rare,20 and
it looks as though we are dealing with a single individual.
Antigenes, then, acted as an emissary of Craterus, but was
tempted to remain in Babylon, assuming the command of
the most prestigious infantry group in the Macedonian
army.21 This is a hypothetical reconstruction, but, if correct,
it is interesting corroboration of the diplomatic contacts and
the political opportunism that the crisis generated.
The Babylon Settlement, then, is a misnomer. What we
are dealing with is the first stage of a complicated process
of political bargaining. It is the compromise between the
conflicting factional groups at Babylon which entrenched
Perdieeas as the dominant figure—the dominant figure at

and if there is any truth in the highly coloured and partisan story of the .Alexander
Romance, he left court a little before the king's death and lingered a while around
Cilicia (Melz Epit, 100; Ps. Call. 3.32.3). If so, he can hardly not have met Craterus,
and carried messages back to Antipater in Maeedon.
18
Diod, 18.23.1; Arr. Slice, V 1.21; just, 1.3.6.5—7. A papyrus of the Hellenistic
period, purporting to represent an altercation between Dcmadcs and Dcinarehus at a
judicial hearing in Pella, claims that Nicaea was betrothed to Perdtceas by Alexander
himself (PBerl 13045 = K. Kunst, Berliner Klassikitrtexte V I I (Berlin 1923)).
"' Arr, Succ. F 1.35, 38; Diod. 18.39,5, 59>3> 62.4—7 etc.; Pint. Bum. 13.3;
cf. Hosworth, 'History and Artifice* 66—70; Hcckcl 312-16. Antigenes had
briefly commanded a phalanx regiment under Alexander, and he was attached to
Craterus on the return march from India {Arr. 6.17.3} and later at Opis (Just.
12.12.8).
20
There is possibly one other Antigenes, the one-eyed Macedonian veteran who
falsely listed himself as a debtor early in 324 (Plut. A,le,\'. 70.3—6; cf, Mor. 3390,
where he is conflated with Atarrbias). He was clearly not oi high status, and can
hardly be identified with the phalanx commander, although he may be the
'Antigenes* (the \1SS read Antigonis) who received a minor hypaspist command in
late 331 (Curt. 5.2.5 with Atkinson's commentary ad loc.). See also Billows,
/ijitigowos 57—9, who revives Tarn's hypothesis (AL 11,314) that Plutarch's story is a
garbled version of a tradition relating to the most famous monopfithalmos of the age,
Antigonus himself.
21
Heekel 312 (after SO 57 (1982) 57—67) argues that Antigenes was left in Cilicia
as Craterus' lieutenant, and deserted to Perdieeas when he moved on Egypt.
34 The Politics of the Babylon Settlement
Babylon. We have no idea how it was received by Craterus
or Antipater, or even whether they accepted the authority of
the officers and rank-and-file at Babylon, It is the story
of Perdiccas' success, interesting enough in itself, but only
part of the political mosaic. Even here we are plagued with
defective evidence. Most of the sources are the briefest of
epitomes. Photius' excerpts of Arrian and Dexippus are dom-
inated by the catalogue of satrapal appointments; they are
practically uninformative about the events which led to the
settlement. The same can be said of Diodorus, who is at
his most laconic when describing the political conflict at
Babylon, Our chief authorities, at least the most expansive,
are Justin and Curtius Rufus. They do give a summary of
events, but they are mutually contradictory. Are they using
different sources, or do they have different agendas? Justin is
excerpting Trogus' Historiae Philippicae in a notoriously
capricious and slapdash manner, whereas Curtius is explicitly
looking to the present, contrasting the dissolution produced
by the division of powers at Babylon with the state of felicity
achieved at Rome by the uncontested elevation of the cur-
rent emperor. Justin may have mutilated the sense of his ori-
ginal beyond reconstruction, while Curtius, to put it crudely,
may be indulging in historical fiction.22 Can we establish
any firm principles of criticism, or is the truth beyond human
elucidation?
I shall begin with what is arguably the best attested
episode, the first meeting after Alexander's death and the
acclamation of Arrhidaeus. After a gloomy description of the
mourning by Persians and Macedonians alike, exacerbated
by the ritual quenching of all fires overnight,2-' Curtius gives
a detailed description of a gathering of senior officers in the
royal palace. It is meant to be private, but it is infiltrated by
rank-and-file who refuse to be excluded (10.6.1—3). As a
result it turns into a strange blend of council and assembly,
11
So, most dogmatically, McKcchnic (above, n. i), following and intensifying
the arguments of Martin.
3?
- dirt. 10.5.16. Some months before Alexander had ordered the quenching of
fires after the death of Hcphaestion, an honour exclusive to the King and seen as
prophetic of his own death (Diod. 17.114.4—5; cf. Schachermeyr, Al, in Babylon
46—8). Curtius interprets the custom as a sign of ge?ieral demoralisation: 4nec
qmsquam lumina audebat accendere'.
 The Politics of the Babylon Settlement 35
consilium, and contto. Various proposals are canvassed inconclus-
ively, until Meleager, a senior infantry commander, objects vio-
lently to the prospect of Perdiccas as regent for Alexander's
unborn child, and bursts out of the meeting (10.6.20-4). At
that stage an unknown infantryman speaks out for Arrhidaeus,
who has not hitherto been mentioned (10.7.1-3), and
Arrhidaeus is then introduced to the meeting by Meleager
and hailed as king by the infantry (10.7.7), Justin's account is
significantly different. The initial debate is confined to the
senior commanders.24 The infantry is excluded, and objects
to the fact;25 it then spontaneously declares for Arrhidaeus.
Meleager only appears as a delegate sent alongside Attains to
reconcile the rank-and-file to the decision of the marshals—
at which point he deserts his mission and sides with the
mutineers. That is essentially the story of Diodorus,26 and it
comes from a common tradition.
By contrast, Curtius' account is a confused pot pourri, and
it has been argued that it has been carefully shaped to draw
an analogy between the proclamation of Arrhidaeus and the
accession of Claudius in January, AD 41.2? The description of
the meeting is based on the senatorial debate during the night
after Caligula's assassination, when (so Josephus claims) a
common praetorian drew attention to the fact that they had
Claudius ready at hand, an emperor in waiting.28 Arrhidaeus

24
Just. 13.2.5—3.1; the commanders first meet and confirm Perdiccas' proposal,
They swear allegiance to the four guardians, as then do the cavalry (3.1). Only then
does the infantry enter the equation.
z
> just. 13.3.1: 'indignati nullas sibi consilionim partes relictas.'
26
Diod. 18.2.2—3. "is account begins with the phalanx opting for Arrhidaeus;
the preliminary council ol the marshals is (.knitted, as it is m PhiHius' miserable
summary of Arrian's }fhtoiy oj the Successors (V ta. 1—2).
"7 So, in primis, Martin (above, n. i) 176—84. Sec also Atkinson, 1.36—8;
11. Bodefeld, Unte.rsuchungen stir Datierurig der Alexandergeschichte des O. Curtius
Rujits 2j—6. For a rather different interpretation, stressmg Perdiceas' dissimulation,
see .Atkinson, in Al. in Fact and Fiction 321—3. A. M. Devinc (Phoenix 33 (1979)
153-4) had already compared Tiberius and Alexander as masters of deception. For
a compendium of Roman echoes see Baynham, Alexander the Great. The Unique
Htstorv of Quintus Oui'ljus 215,
35
Jos.BJ 2,211—12. There is no counterpart in the more extensive version in AJ
19.248-53. In it the soldiers collectively call upon the senate to choose a ruler (249),
and there is no dramatic gesture by any individual. It seems prima facie likely that
Josephits' account ID BJ is rhetorically shaped to echo the events of 323, See below,
n- 33-
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 Resolved, That the National Association of Retail Druggists
request its members to refrain from using this insignia to
designate their places of business.
 THE STORY OF THE RED CROSS
V.
SOCIETIES SUGGESTED.
“Why did I write ‘Un Souvenir de Solferino’”? M. Dunant asks
himself, and replies:
“That societies, like those suggested, with a permanent existence
should be organized so that they could be ready to act the moment
war was declared. They should receive official recognition from their
respective governments, with permission and facilities for continuing
their noble work to the end. Among their officials should be the most
honorable and esteemed men. In our century of egotism what an
attraction for generous hearts and chivalrous characters to brave the
same danger as the soldier, with a voluntary mission of peace and
consolation! History proves there is nothing chimerical in counting
upon such devotion. Two facts especially confirm this. While the
Sisters of Charity cared for the sick and wounded of the French army
in the Crimea, the Russian and British armies witnessed the arrival
from the north and the west of two legions of noble women nurses.
The Grand Duchess, Helene Paulowna, of Russia, widow of the
Grand Duke Michael, engaged nearly 300 ladies of St. Petersburg
and Moscow, provided them with supplies, and sent them to the
hospitals in the Crimea, where these good women were blessed by
thousands of the soldiers.
“Miss Florence Nightingale, having received from the Minister of
War a pressing appeal to help the sick and wounded English
soldiers, left for Scutari in November, 1854, with 27 other women. In
1855 Miss Stanley, with 50 more women, went out. The image of
Florence Nightingale, her little lamp in hand, passing at night down
the vast wards of the military hospitals and taking note of each of the
sick and wounded will never be effaced from the hearts of the men
who were the objects of her noble charity, and the story of her work
will remain forever engraved in history.
“In many cases of similar devotion, ancient and modern, how
many proved of little value because they were isolated and were not
supported by the sympathy of others intelligently associated together
for a common end? Had trained nurses and hospital orderlies been
at Castiglione those terrible days of June 24, 25, and 26, how many
human lives would have been saved? The sight of so many brave
young soldiers crippled by loss of arm or leg returning disconsolately
to their homes must arouse a feeling of remorse that no measures
had been taken beforehand to prevent such consequences of
wounds which would have healed had proper care been given them
at first.
“For the accomplishment of such a work help must be immediate,
for he who can save the wounded to-day can not save them to-
morrow. Why could not such humane work be organized, permanent,
and universal, instead of desultory, temporary, and restricted? It
appeals to the men of all countries and all ranks, from the monarch
to the workingman, for all may take their part in this good work, from
the high-born lady to the simple housewife—all who desire to
contribute to their neighbor’s welfare. It appeals to the general, to the
marshal, the minister of war, the writer, who by his publications may
plead for a cause that interests all humanity.”
Dunant also urged the calling of special conferences to formulate
an international treaty for the protection of the sick and wounded and
the hospital personnel in time of war.
The result of these reflections was the formation in 1863 of the
universal work of the Red Cross, which should not only be useful on
the battle field in war time, but also in time of epidemic, floods, fires,
and catastrophes generally, and in 1864 the first treaty of Geneva,
since accepted by all the civilized countries of the world, was signed.
The Bishop of Orleans pronounced this “a beautiful and Christian
idea of M. Dunant’s,” observing that “he who does good is the
compatriot of all, and deserves a universal passport.”
 TUBERCULOSIS DEPARTMENT
AMERICAN RED CROSS CHRISTMAS STAMPS
Terms and Conditions Governing their Sale and Disposition of
the Proceeds.

Practical experience
in the Red Cross
Christmas stamp
campaign in the season
of 1908, and in the
distribution of the
proceeds from stamp
sales, has shown the
necessity of certain
changes in conditions
and methods. The rules
which will govern in the
sale of stamps and
disbursement of
proceeds from July 1,
1909, until further notice are as follows:
Rule 1. The American Red Cross will appoint agents to sell the
stamps and dispose of the proceeds. The stamps will not be sold to
agents but will remain the property of the Red Cross until sold at
retail by the agents. Agents will be such State branches and sub-
divisions of the Red Cross and such anti-tuberculosis societies or
other organizations as may be appointed.
Rule 2. Before entrusting the sale of Christmas stamps to any
society, the Red Cross will require satisfactory evidence of the
reliability and standing of the society and its ability to creditably carry
out the Red Cross purposes in the expenditure of the proceeds from
stamp sales.
Every State branch or subdivision and every other society desiring
to sell Christmas stamps is required to first submit to the Central
Committee a statement of the particular anti-tuberculosis work which
it proposes to support or promote with the proceeds from the stamp
sales. If the organization desiring to sell stamps intends to expend
the money itself, the statement should make plain the exact
character of the work proposed to be carried on. If it intends to turn
the money over for expenditure to one or more other societies or
agencies, the names of such other societies or agencies and the
kind of work for which the money will be expended by them should
be explicitly stated.
All the information called for in rule 2 should reach the National
office of the Red Cross during the summer in order that there may be
no delay in the appointment of agents or the forwarding of stamps
when the selling period arrives.
Rule 3. The appointment of agents will be for the period ending
March 1, 1910. During the term of its appointment an agent shall
have the exclusive right to sell Red Cross stamps within the city
(including suburbs) in which such agent is situated and the
expenditure of the proceeds of the sale of stamps will be under the
immediate direction of such agent, in accordance with the general
plan approved by the Red Cross.
Rule 4. The American Red Cross will supply Christmas stamps to
agents free of charge. It will also supply, free of charge, posters and
printed matter intended to assist in the sale of stamps.
Rule 5. When the stamp sale is ended the agent will return all
unsold stamps to the National office of the Red Cross. The Red
Cross must pay for all stamps printed whether they are sold or not.
Unsold stamps returned are a total loss. In view of this all agents are
requested to order stamps with the utmost care. It is expected that
all orders can be promptly filled. There will, therefore, be no
necessity for trying to make a first order large enough to cover all the
demands for the entire season. This advice is especially urged upon
agents who have not heretofore sold the stamps.
Rule 6. All express charges and all postage required in forwarding
shipments of stamps or in returning unsold stamps will be paid by
the Red Cross.
Rule 7. Christmas stamps are to be sold at the uniform price of
one cent each. The stamps will be printed in sheets of 100 each and
shipped in packages of 10,000 stamps or multiples of 10,000. No
broken packages will be shipped. Stamp books will not be issued in
1909.
Rule 8. In ordering stamps as Christmas approaches, it is
important to consider the congested condition of business with the
express companies and post offices, and the distance which the
shipment must travel. By careful forethought it will usually be found
possible to estimate needs early enough for orders to be filled in
good time. The Red Cross will respond promptly, but cannot prevent
express and postal delays.
Rule 9. On or before February 1, 1910, every agent which has
sold Red Cross Christmas stamps shall pay to the American Red
Cross an amount of money equal to one-third of the face value of all
stamps sold by such agent. Any expenses incidental to the sale
incurred by the agent will be paid from the two-thirds retained by the
agent and the remainder will be applied to local anti-tuberculosis
work in accordance with the plans previously approved by the Red
Cross.
Societies which sold Red Cross Christmas stamps in 1908 will
note that the plan of selling stamps and disposing of the proceeds
described above marks a considerable departure from the plan of
last year.
This change is the result of careful thought and is believed to be in
the direction of better business method and greater justice to all
concerned. It seems eminently fair that the important direct work of
the Red Cross should in some measure profit from the sale of
stamps. The loyal and generous support which the American people
have given to the Red Cross leads to the belief that the buyers of
stamps will be pleased to know that a portion of the money comes
direct to its great work.
In making the societies which sell the stamps its agents the Red
Cross is giving them certain concessions which are extremely
important. They will require no cash capital or initial expenditures.
The provisions for a free supply of posters and printed matter and
the payment of express and postal charges by the Central
Committee will assure every agent against loss. If all the work of
selling stamps is carried on by volunteers, there will be no expense
to the agents connected with the campaign. In any event the
necessary expenses will be trifling and there is no risk of loss
involved in undertaking the agency for the stamps.
The total cost to the National office of the Red Cross of printing
and handling of Christmas stamps in 1908 was about $13,000. This
amount was repaid from the proceeds of the wholesale price at
which the Stamps were sold to agents. In 1909, under the proposal
set forth in the rules above, the expenditures by the National office of
the Red Cross will include not only the printing and handling of the
stamps but the printing and distribution of posters, circulars, etc., and
the payment of all express and postal charges upon shipments of
stamps and other supplies. Instead of charging these expenses
directly to the agents, as in 1908, they will be covered by the one-
third share of the proceeds of stamp sales reserved by the Red
Cross, as described in rule 9 above.
With a double incentive to the purchase of stamps on the part of
the public, an absolute absence of risk or initial expense on the part
of agents, and the great favor of the public established last year, the
campaign for the Christmas season of 1909 should bring a generous
return to all concerned.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
By Miss I. L. Strong.
 The second season of the Red Cross Day Camp for Tuberculosis
began the first of April. Several improvements were made on last
year’s camp. We now have two visiting physicians, Dr. Norcross and
Dr. Lawson; a caretaker in charge (who is also “taking the cure”), two
large tents loaned by the War Department, and our own kitchen and
cook. One of the instructive visiting nurses is both Superintendent
and nurse. The patients are ambulatory cases in the first and second
stages. A few advanced cases have been admitted, but most of
these have been referred to the hospital. The Camp draws its
patients largely from the dispensaries.

FOUR OF THE YOUNGER PATIENTS. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAY CAMP.

The patients arrive about 9 a. m., and are given a lunch of milk
and eggs. After having their temperature and pulse taken they
wander out under the trees, where the hammocks and reclining
chairs are found. Here they stay reading and sleeping till noon, when
a hot dinner is served. This consists of meat, potatoes, one
vegetable, milk, bread and butter, and a dessert, usually made of
milk and eggs. After an hour’s rest the children generally play
croquet or visit the spring in the woods. Lately they have been much
interested in seven puppies found in the woods. Of course they have
been promptly adopted. A setting hen is also a member of the family.
Another lunch of milk and eggs is served at 4, the afternoon
temperatures recorded, the car tickets given out, and preparations
made to “break camp” at 5.30 p. m. The Camp is ideally situated
among the trees high up behind the new Municipal Hospital. On the
list to-day there are 19 patients—5 white men, 3 white women, 2
white boys, 5 colored men, 1 colored woman, and 3 colored children.
Of the cases thus far treated 2 have been discharged cured, 3
improved and continue the out-door treatment in the country, 7 have
been transferred to the hospital, 3 have died, and 9 are at home,
either at work or unable to attend, thus giving a total of 43 patients
admitted, with an average attendance of 14. Of the patients now on
the list 9 are making constant progress, and 10 are holding their
own. We feel sure that though the camp has hardly as yet made a
beginning, yet the results thus far justify its continuance. The camp
life is educational as well as beneficial. Fresh air, cleanliness and
carefulness are constantly being taught, and each patient becomes a
little center to spread the knowledge of the cause and prevention of
tuberculosis. Now that it is started the District of Columbia cannot
afford to be without its Red Cross Day Camp.

INDIANA
By Rowland Evans,
Secretary Indiana Branch American Red Cross.
“Whether tuberculosis will be finally eradicated is even an open
question. It is a foe that is very deeply intrenched in the human race.
Very hard it will be to eradicate completely, but when we think of
what has been done in one generation, how the mortality in many
places has been reduced more than 50 per cent., indeed, in some
places 100 per cent., it is a battle of hope, and so long as we are
fighting with hope the victory is in sight.”—Dr. William Osler.
 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OF INDIANA RED CROSS TUBERCULOSIS
CAMP.

A GROUP OF COTTAGES OF INDIANA RED CROSS TUBERCULOSIS CAMP.

 A SINGLE COTTAGE (IN CENTER) COSTING $60. INDIANA RED CROSS
TUBERCULOSIS CAMP.

The Indiana Branch realized $3,851.58 from the sale of Christmas

stamps. To dispose of this fund to best advantage in anti-
tuberculosis work, the Executive Committee early in February
appointed as a sub-committee, with power to act: Dr. Frederick A. R.
Tucker, of Noblesville, president of the State Board of Health; Rev.
Francis H. Gavisk and James W. Lilly. After providing specific relief
in four curable cases, it was found that the greatest good could be
accomplished by enlisting local co-operation in the practical work of
relief.
 A DOUBLE COTTAGE (COSTING $80) OF THE INDIANA RED CROSS
TUBERCULOSIS CAMP.

The Indianapolis Board of Health, through its health officer and

secretary, Dr. Eugene Buehler, had recently established free clinics
at the City Dispensary and Bobbs’ Free Dispensary, and had begun
a campaign of publicity, advertising its clinics and carding groceries
and meat markets, which were raised to a better sanitary standard,
and in various ways, by visitation and distribution of pure food and
medicines, surrounding patients at their homes with better hygienic
conditions. The need for facilities to isolate and treat curable cases
with the necessary fresh air and sunshine resulted in the
establishment of a colony of cottages on the City Hospital grounds,
the Indiana Branch furnishing the first four—two single and two
double cottages. As soon as this became known the Second
Presbyterian and St. John’s Catholic churches and private
individuals arranged to donate others, until there are now on the
grounds eleven cottages. The single cottages cost complete, $62,
size 10 × 12; double cottages, 10 × 16, $80. The specifications are:
House, 10 × 16 feet, with concrete foundation under house and
porch; foundation to be 6 inches high. Siding to be tongued and
grooved drop-siding; framing material to be 2 × 4 placed flatwise 30
inches on centers; flooring and roof material to be tongued and
grooved. Hip-roof on main building and shed roof on porch. Porch to
be 6 feet wide, with square posts and small rail. Four windows, 35 ×
35, with canvas tacked on frame hinged at top. Three windows, 18 ×
35, with canvas tacked on frame hinged at top. One glass door to be
placed in each single and two in each double house. All lumber to be
dressed on both sides and to receive two coats of paint inside and
out, color to be selected by owner. Two-ply rubberoid roofing to be
placed on roof. Price for cottages outside Indianapolis same, with
freight added.
A cottage was also erected, partly through funds provided by the
Indiana Branch, to be used in connection with the colony for dining
room and kitchen to prepare food for patients and quarters for
nurses and cook. This cottage has sewer connection, hot and cold
water and sanitary plumbing. Patients’ cottages have electric call
bells to summon the nurse, and electric lights are supplied from the
City Hospital plant. A bath house is now being erected, providing
separate bath rooms for male and female patients.
Adjoining the City Hospital grounds the Flower Mission—a private
charity partially supported by public funds—maintains a hospital for
incurables. It is the only place in the State where hopeless cases are
received. The Flower Mission nurses also minister to the relief of
tuberculosis patients at their homes. The branch donated $500 to the
furtherance of this work.
The plan inaugurated at Indianapolis under Dr. Buehler’s
management contemplates (1) extension of facilities of the colony
system to include and care for every offered curable case; (2)
minimizing the danger of contagion and infection from chronic or
incurable cases by isolation where practicable, or else supervizing
the home conditions so as to surround the patient with hygienic
comforts, pure food and drugs, and lessen the danger of infection to
other members of the household. Both parts of the work are well
under way and as fast as funds will permit the work will be extended.
 The sub-committee, under the direction of Dr. Tucker, secured like
co-operation of local authorities elsewhere in the State, and cottages
have been erected as follows: Four in South Bend, four in Terre
Haute, six in Evansville, three in Lafayette, and negotiations are
pending for supplying Richmond, Fort Wayne, New Albany, Frankfort
and Huntington. The branch erects the cottages and the local
authorities maintain them. In every case it has proven an effective
stimulus to local aid by the municipality and private charity.

NEW YORK
Ferryboat for Red Cross.

Miss Mary Harriman, eldest daughter of E. H. Harriman, has taken

one of her father’s Erie ferryboats and turned it into a man-o’-peace
to fight tuberculosis. She has presented the boat to the Brooklyn
Committee on the Prevention of Tuberculosis and the Brooklyn Red
Cross Society.
It will go into commission as a part of the Red Cross Navy on July
1, when its flag will fly over an anchorage off Brooklyn.
Hammocks, steamer chairs, and other conveniences of out-in-the-
air sleeping will be arranged for the accommodation of 300 men,
women and children. Three meals a day will be served on the boat.

Resolution of the International Association of Accident

Underwriters.

Mr. A. E. Forrest, president of the North American Accident

Insurance Company of Chicago, presented the following resolutions,
which were unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That the International Association of Accident

Underwriters, in convention assembled, herewith voices its
profound admiration for the magnificent work of the American
 National Red Cross in its efforts for the relief of suffering and
distressed humanity and for the prevention of disease;
Resolved, That we extend to the officers and members of
the American National Red Cross our heartfelt co-operation,
and earnestly recommend that not only the companies and
associations, members of this association, but that all
branches of insurance interests will, so far as lies in their
power, promote its humane labors by a liberal use of the Red
Cross Christmas stamps;
Resolved, That the thanks of this convention are herewith
tendered to Miss Mabel T. Boardman, a noble woman, whose
ardent labors in the cause of humanity sheds such bright
lustre upon American womanhood, for the charming
compliment which her letter addressed to this association so
graciously conveys; be it further
Resolved, That the thanks of this convention are herewith
tendered to Mr. Max Cohen, editor of Views, Washington, D.
C., for embodying this appeal from one of the greatest
instrumentalities for a higher and finer civilization in his
interesting and instructive address pertaining to the
presentation by this association of its George E. McNeill
medal in rewarding acts of heroism in the saving of human
life.

WHAT THE CHRISTMAS STAMP IS DOING IN

NEW HAMPSHIRE
By George B. Leighton.
New Hampshire is a small State, but its people have the same
interest in advancing the methods of living and the same desire to be
abreast of the times that people of other States have. The motives
which govern its people are as high minded as in any other State,
and a great deal that has been said in regard to the political
shortcomings of the State are not in accordance with the facts. The
 people of New
Hampshire
became
interested in the
Christmas stamp
idea, and, so far
as they were
able, have
seemingly
accomplished a
good deal to be
proud of. The
New Hampshire
Federation of
Women’s Clubs,
through the then
president, Mrs.
Lorin Webster,
took a deep
interest in the
Christmas stamp
campaign of last
December, and
largely through
their efforts we had in bank something over $1,300. Naturally, many
people who had helped in selling the stamps felt that they should
have a part of the funds for particular cases of tuberculosis in which
they were interested, but the officers of the Red Cross took the
position that these funds were to be used for general rather than for
special work, believing that in the end more good would be
accomplished. As there are no tuberculosis societies in the State of
any prominence, although one exists in name, we decided to spend
this money on rather new lines. We believed that the way to
exterminate a disease was to prevent, so far as possible, new cases.
To accomplish this end a poster was prepared, which is indicated in
the cut, and it has been very generally circulated through the State,
being placed in all schools, mills, railway stations and places of
public meeting. In the distribution of this poster the Women’s Clubs
assisted materially. All together, some 8,000 of these posters have
been distributed and requests are coming in continually for additional
copies. The poster states in concise language three conspicuous
factors or conditions in the campaign against tuberculosis, that the
disease is contagious, that it is curable, and that it is preventable.
The Boston & Maine Railroad, which operates practically the entire
railway mileage in New Hampshire, has taken a deep interest in this
matter in that they have placed the placards in all of their stations
and have instructed their agents to see that they are not defaced or
removed. This assistance has been most helpful. The railway even
went further and placed the placards in its stations in other States,
for it has a considerable mileage in Massachusetts, Vermont and
Maine. The result of this has been that numerous requests have
been received from Massachusetts, from people interested in the
tuberculosis campaign, for those posters, as they have seen them in
the other States. The people in the good commonwealth of
Massachusetts have been obliged to confess that they have had to
come to New Hampshire for a very important suggestion in this work.
The more the writer familiarizes himself with the tuberculosis
campaign the more he is impressed that if the disease can be
eliminated it must be done by informing practically every citizen of
the State how to avoid contracting it, and we believe that what we
have accomplished by this poster has been or will prove to be
successful.
The superintendent of public instruction in our State, Mr. Morrison,
grasped the idea of the importance of this poster early in the
campaign, and he prepared a letter to all his subordinates directing
them to place the poster in the schools and to see that attention was
directed to them by the teachers. Again, Rev. R. E. Thompson, head
of the New Hampshire Sunday School organization, felt the
importance of this work, and he, too, prepared a circular letter to be
sent to 600 superintendents and teachers in the State requesting
them to put a placard in all Sunday Schools and direct attention to it.
Copies of the poster were sent to the different granges throughout
the State. The posters have been printed on cardboard, measuring
19 × 12½, and they cost, with envelopes, about a cent a piece.
 In addition to this form of publicity the New Hampshire Branch has
prepared two bulletins, one being a reprint of Rev. Elwood
Worcester’s article which appeared in the Ladies’ Home Journal for
March, 1900, on the class method of treating tuberculosis. This has
been circulated gratuitously throughout the State. The conditions
seem to be such in our State that in a good many communities the
class method ought to accomplish much. Again, we prepared as
Bulletin No. 3 an article issued by the Boston Association for the
Relief and Control of Tuberculosis, which treats in a very simple
manner of the essentials of right living and clean living. This bulletin
is also being distributed gratuitously.
So much as indicating how the campaign has been carried on
through the assistance of printer’s ink, but we have in addition
secured the services of Mrs. Duryea, whose duties are to go about
the State and tell of the class method of treating tuberculosis. The
method of procedure is that she communicate with the officers of the
local Women’s Club, some of the medical men and other prominent
citizens, to the end that a meeting will be arranged, and at this
meeting she tells of what has been done in Boston at the
Massachusetts General Hospital in curing those afflicted with the
disease.
We have found, regrettably, that the doctors in some of the smaller
communities have not sufficiently studied the apprehension of the
disease in its early stages. The State Board of Health has
recognized this and is endeavoring to bring before the profession
means and suggestions so that all of its members may have the
latest word on this subject. The State of New Hampshire has
directed, and is about to open for the treatment of patients, a
sanitarium situated in the northern central section of the State, but
this sanitarium will accommodate very few cases, and for this reason
our campaign has been largely to interesting communities in
establishing tuberculosis classes.
The death rate from tuberculosis in New Hampshire has
decreased materially in the last ten years. It has dropped from
considerably over 1 death per 1,000 of population to less than 1
death per 1,000 of population. A study of the report of the State
Board of Health shows that the death-rate is higher in proportion to
the population in that part of the State nearest the sea than it is in
the western or Connecticut valley district.
We feel that we can not as yet consider our work anything more
than begun. It is a campaign of education, and when considered
from this point of view we feel that we have accomplished a great
deal. Unquestionably, a very much larger number of citizens know
certain things about tuberculosis than they did six months or a year
ago. Everybody must know these facts before the work of publicity is
fully accomplished.
We have made an open offer of financial assistance to any
tuberculosis class or summer camp that is established, and in the
coming years a much larger amount of money can be distributed in
this way.
RED CROSS NURSES’ DEPARTMENT
Miss Delano’s Appointment.
The Red Cross can not fail to be greatly pleased by the following
announcement:
Miss Jane A. Delano, of New York, has been appointed
Superintendent of the Army Nurse Corps. Miss Delano was formerly
Superintendent of Nurses at the Bellevue Hospital in New York, and
is President of the National Association of Nurses. It is probable that
an attempt will be made at the next session of Congress to enlarge
and organize the Army Nurse Corps.
Miss Delano has long been deeply interested in the Red Cross
and has been for some time a member of the New York State Branch
Committee on Nurses. She will be appointed a member of the Red
Cross War Relief Board and be made the Chairman of its
Subcommittee on Nurses. By this arrangement the whole system of
the Regular Army Nursing Corps and Red Cross Nursing Corps will
be placed under one head, so that in case of war the plans for Red
Cross nursing assistance will fall into complete accord with the
demands of the Army Medical Service. Miss Delano will, therefore,
be not only fully advised as to the regular nursing strength of the
Army Corps, but will know exactly the status of the volunteer aid of
the Red Cross Nursing Corps.
At the annual meeting of the Federation of Nurses, held last June
at Minneapolis, a resolution was passed that the Alumnæ
Association of Trained Nurses of the United States affiliate with the
Red Cross according to the plan outlined by the War Relief Board.
This plan provides for a Subcommittee on Nurses of the War Relief
Board, the committee of fifteen to consist of a Chairman, who is to
be a trained nurse, two other trained nurses, an Army surgeon, and
a Navy surgeon, and one other person, all members of the War
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com