Alexander's death in Babylon on (June 10, 323 B.C.) left the empire without a direct heir at the time of his death, since Alexander had an unborn child with a Bactrian princess Roxane. The vast empire that Alexander conquered with the sword was loosely held together and after his death the leading officers present in Babylon came together to discuss who was going to exercise power on behalf of the Argead dynasty until a king was named. Perdiccas was in the strongest position to assume the role, having been Alexander's chief lieutenant during the last months of his riegn. Plus Periccas own report that Alexander gave him his ring, its seal the symbol of the state. Perdiccas with the ring given to him by Alexander and acting as a Chiliarch(Vizier) summoned the council of generals to find a successor to Alexander's empire.

The answer of who would lead the empire fell to the Macedonian military and the general who were in Babylon, in what became the crisis for succession after Alexander's death. A bitter dispute over the succession occurred between the cavalry headed by Perdiccas and the infantry phalanx and their spokesman Meleager. The issue being that the infantry preferred Phillip II's feebled minded epileptic son Arrhidaios, half-brother to Alexander. This preference for Arrhidaios was racial in tone, the infantry protesting that Macedonians could not obey the son of a Persian woman.1 Instead Perdiccas proposed waiting for the birth of the unborn child of Alexander and Roxane. If this child were to be a boy, he would be king. In either case the proponents for their particular solution to the succession would become guardians to either king and rule in their place.

After a brief confrontation between opposing forces in which Perdiccas was almost captured by Meleager and his infantry a compromise between the opposing factions was made. Arrhidaios was given the title of king and Roxane's son, if he was a boy would rule as joint kings with Arrhidaios who became Philip III and Roxane's son who was a boy eventually became Alexander IV. The notion of a successful transfer of power was short lived, the joint kings from the beginning were both pawns in the struggle for power2, between those who sough the unity of the empire and those who intended to hold on to their satraps as independent kingdoms.

When the succession crisis was resolved at Babylon, Perdiccas gained the most from the conference. He was formally Chiliarch of the kings. The post entailed authority over the entire empire. The strength of Perdiccas position was enormous. He was to run the empire on behalf of the kings, all other Macedonian leaders being subordinated to him. The leaders accepted it by accepting satrapial and military appointments from Perdiccas.3 Perdiccas then proceeded to assign Satrapies, a mere formality since many of the Satrapies remained in the hands of those who were directing them at the time. Antipater remained strategos of Europe, Ptolemy received Egypt, Lyssimachus was given Thrace, and Pamphylia, Lycia and Greater Phrygia to Antigonus Monophthalmus(the "one-eyed"), Hellespontine Phrygia to Leonnatus. Eumenes received Paphlagonia and Cappadocia districts still to be conquered and offered to Eumenes probably out of resentment which the Macedonian old Guard towards him.4 Craterus became the guardian (Prostates) of the king and in charge of the imperial forces in Asia, since Philip III was not capable of leading. The fact that Craterus was not in Asia at the time of the Babylon conference prevented him from exercising his right as executive of Philips kingship. With the satrapies granted the rulers set out to their particular regions and began building military strength to counter any threats to their territories.

For the next twenty-two years after Alexander the Great's death his succesors "the Diadochoi" fought among themselves for increased power or for the defense of their satraps. Without much consideration to the dual monarchy and the eventual coming of age of Alexander IV, as king of Macedonia. In the power struggle the kings were merely tools in the hands of the ambitious generals. The story of the successors is a contest for power among the generals who favored the idea of unity of the empire and those who vigorously pursued power through their independent satraps. The attitude of the successors for unity of the empire changed as their military power varied. The basic conflict being that no successor wanted the resurgence of a powerful leader if that person was not him. War between the generals went on almost without interruption from Alexander's death until the battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., in which the allied kings defeated Antigonus and his son Demettrius, the last of the successors who fought for the unity of Alexander's empire.

Of all the Diadochoi who sought for power after Alexander's death few had the chance or will to re-establish unity to Alexander's empire. The satraps were spoils of war, won not just by Alexander but by strong men who had fought along side Alexander and who sought their own glory after their leader had died. The task required a special leader like Alexander to unify the self-interested states who would not cede their power and wealth without a fight.

Men like Perdiccas and Eumenes all claimed to pursue the unity of the empire in their greed or desire to unify the empire or to stay in power. Perdiccas bid for supreme power by marrying Cleopatra, Alexander's sister led to his downfall. Such actions proved that Perdiccas was not a capable leader instead he was hesistant in situations that required decisive action, he lost ground to political foes, who cast him in the role of usurper.5 Eumenes skill as a leader and a warrior made him a viable successor to Alexander in military terms only since Eumenes was a foreigner. The Macedonians did not look upon him as an equal. This may have been the one reason for his tenacious loyalty to the cause of the kings; his fortune was bound up with the empire, and in the case of partition he would not have received the support of the Macedonian troops in securing a portion for himself.6

The idea of unity for Alexander's empire fell on Antigonus Monophthalmus, he did not envision or show much interest in the eastern regions of the Persian Empire. Antigonus would seek to unify only the Eastern Mediterranean lands adjacent to the Balkans. As a military power among the successors Antigonus seemed the least likely to become a contender for the empire at the time of Alexander's death. Yet Antigonus played a significant role for the next two decades after Alexander's death, and he among the successors is the only leader who came the closest to unifying some reminisce of the empire.

The obscure leader whose name Antigonus the One-eyed created perceptions of a hellish cycloptic figure was relatively unknown until the period of the successors. Antigonus was the son of a certain Philippos and in all probability the family was socially prominent and from the Macedonian nobility.7 Macedonia in the time of Antigonus was a region which lagged behind the rest of the Greek world socially, economically and culturally, failing to develop the polis or city-state institutions characteristic of the most advanced regions of Greece. Macedonia remained instead a tribal society ruled by kings and dominated by a land owning aristocracy.8 It was a member of this powerful and wealthy class that Antigonus grew up in Macedonia. Macedonia never developed beyond the aristocratic form of society, perhaps fueling Antigonus drive to unify Alexander's empire under the leadership of one king at the time of the successors.

During his reign as king of Macedonia from 359-336, Philip transformed Macedonia from a backwards state on the verge of dissolution into a dominant power in the Greek world and the most potent military power in the eastern Mediterranean. Antigonus played a part in the transformation of the Macedon kingdom. Evidence of Antigonus role during Philip's reign comes from a pasage of Justin in which Antigonus is said to have been an associate of Philip during his reign (Justin XVII I, 12). The fact that when Alexander crossed to Asia with Philip's army and officers, Antigonus held an important command.9 This affirms Antigonus significant role during Philip's reign and perhaps explains Antigonus high status and respect among the old guard who assisted Alexander in his conquest of Asia.

At the time of Alexander's crossing into Asia, Antigonus commanded 7000 allied Greek hoplites, participating in the battle at the Graneikos. Antigonus' participation in the conquest of Persia was cut short by Alexander. The king in 333 B.C. appointed Antigonus Satrap of Phrygia, in much the same way as he was employing Parmenion and Alkimachos to secure Macedonian control over the cities of Asia Minor.10 With the satrap of Phrygia, which controlled the main lines of communication in Asia Minor, Antigonus became responsible for the suppression of any Persian resistance in the area.11 Antigonus, for the next years settled in Kelainai in the capital of Phyrgia. Antigonus' peaceful years as the Satrap of Phrygia came to a conclusion upon Alexander's death, for the next two decades this obscure administrative ruler of Phrygia would dominate the political arena during the period of the Diadochoi. For it was Antigonus who had the means to consolidate the Macedonian conquest, for he was the most successful of Alexander's successors militarily.

This obscure leader was a large and tall man perhaps six feet tall. This huge man was made even more formidable in appearance by the fact that he was one-eyed, thus deriving his nickname Antigonus the One-Eyed. To the soldiers, the stature and scarred visage of Antigonus the old guard warrior must have been impressive.12 To battle hardened soldiers such appearance must have produced respect and confidence in Antigonus bravery. Another impressive characteristic of Antigonus was his physical and mental vigor and energy for a man in his sixties and early seventies during the period of the successors. The campaigns he led in those years would have taxed the energy of most, and Antigonus did not spare himself during the campaigns, taking a personal part in the battles and sharing in the work and hardships of his soldiers(Diod. XIX 26, 6-7; 30, 7-10; 42, 4-6; Seneca ira III 22,3).

Aside from his physical appearance Antigonus had an attractive feature, that being his character. Antigonus was a family man, he married his wife and remained married to her for the rest of his life, in sharp contrast to the other successors.13 There was also genuine affection between Antigonus and his son Demetrios. Plutarch reports that there was such a trust between father and son that Demetrios was allowed free access to Antigonus even with weapons in his hands, and Antigonus was so proud of his trust(unusual among the powerful in his day) that he called it to the attention of certain ambassadors from his rival dynasties(see Plut. Dem. 3, 1-4).

The ancient sources mostly portary Antigonus in a negative manner, as an arrogant ambitious man who sought complete dominion over Alexander's Empire Some modern scholars have seized on this aspect of Antigonus and made harshness and arrogance his leading characteristics, blaming them for what they consider his ultimate failure.14 However Richard Billows in his book comes to the defense of Antigonus and states that the latter remarks are a "simplistic and inaccurate view both of Antigonus character and of the sources which modern scholars use." There is no doubt that Antigonus was at times ruthless and even harsh, but common practice for those commanders at the times in which they lived, mostly when Antigonus was rutheless it was matter of policy rather than personal spite.15 The fact being that Antigonus lived in an age that required a stern, powerful and fearful leader who would have the respect of teh warrior he led. In this ruthless age Antigonus actually had a reputation for being relatively mild and forgiving, especially towards the end of his live: he behaved kindly to captured enemy soldiers (Diod. XVIII 45, 4), and his own men(Diod. XIX 20,1); when he captured a number of enemy leaders at the leaders at the battle of Kretopolis in 319 he merely imprisoned them (Diod. XVIII 45,3; XIX 16, I-1) rather than killing them, and he later took one of them Dokimos into his service. Antigonus' attempt to unify the empire through force, against determined individual Macedonian dynasts creates a perception of ruthlessness. Antigonus' death in his pursuit for unification permitted the victors to write the history of that period. Ptolemy's account of the period portrays Antigonus as a greedy and arrogant leader, yet Antigonus being an adversary of Ptolemy naturally accounts for the negative feelings.

Antigonus' rise to power began by fleeing from his Satrap in 321 B.C. in order to avoid standing trial for disobedience. Antigonus had refused Perdiccas' orders to assist in the conquest of Kappodokia and Paplagonia, satraps that were intended to go for Eumenes (Plut. Eum. 3,2). As satrap to Kappodokia and Paplagonia, Eumenes would hold a satrapy equivalent in size and potential to Antigonus own and stategically located on the Royal Road from Mesopotamia. Antigonus realized that Perdiccas in some sense intended Eumenes to become a counterweight against him.16

Antigonus' flight to Europe took him to Antipatros, where Antigonus informed Antipater of Perdiccas intention to marry Cleopatra, Alexander's sister. Such news confirmed what Antipatros and Crateros had suspected, Perdiccas' aim at complete control of Alexander's empire.17 Antipatros soon began to prepare his forces to invade Asia, by early 320 B.C. Antipatros, Craterus, Lysimachus joined forces against Perdiccas. From the south Perdiccas also faced a hostile Ptolemy who Perdiccas suspected of also aiming for sole control for the Empire.18 Perdiccas left the defense of Asia to Eumenes, and he marched south to Egypt to dispose of Ptolemy. While attempting to cross the Nile thousands of his troops drowned, his campain against Egypt thus ended in a shameful defeat. Perdiccas lost respect among his troops, and was murdered in his tent by a group of his own officers.19 In Asia Eumenes emerged victorious against the coalistion of Antigonus and Craterus, Craterus having died in battle. Still the death of Perdiccas and Craterus left a void in the power structure. Another meeting of the successor was held, this time at Trparadeisos in Syria.20 Antipater was appointed guardian of the Kings, and head of the entire empire. Eumenes was condemned to death upon his capture, and Antigonus was given command of Antipatros' army in Asia. As chief of the Macedonian army in Asia, Antigonus was chosen to seek Eumenes and destroy Eumenes' forces.

Success against Eumenes and his colleagues Acceltas and Attalus proved that Antigonus was a strong leader. Antigonus had so strong a position that he began to seriously consider taking over the whole empire.21 As the master of Asia Minor, he did not think it beyond his power to extend his influence and power, making himself independent of royal authority. Which since the death of Antipatros in 319 B.C. was no more than a shadow.22 With the appointment of Polyperchon as successor to Antipatros the regency lacked the respect that perhaps Antigonus might be able to portray. Antigonus saw that the idea of empire was in danger of dissolving amid the rivalries of the Satraps. Antigonus was among Alexander's successors, in the strongest position to reunite the lands conquered by Alexander. Antigonus was capable and desired sole rule and upon the death of Antipatros it was Antigonus who championed the notion of an empire until his death in 301 B.C.

In the years that ensued a state of flux within the empire, there was no clear leader or administrator of the empire and just factions factions fighting for ultimate control. Cassander, Ptolemy, Lyssimachus and Antigonus opposed the arrangement which made Polyperchnon the leader of the empire. Polyperchon's attempt to stay in power led him to seek Eumenes as an ally. Polyperchon appointed the Greek as "Imperial General in Asia" with extensive powers. Eumenes served the Argead dynasty with devoted loyalty. His veneration of the dead king is attested along with his order in the military camp to maintain the cult of Alexander.23 After a bitter struggle in Greece between Cassander and Polyperchons, Antigonus and Eumenes their attempt to keep control of the empire failed. The victory gave Antigonus the opportunity to extend his power, his ambition or desire for the unity of the empire and was immediately recognized by allies who helped defeat Polyperchon. Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander saw the threat that Antigonus' ambition to unite the Empire brough, and they allied themselves against Antigonus in a war dating from 315 to 311 B.C. The war had no clear winner, and the peace for Antigonus was disappointing. Instead of recognition as "Administrator of the Empire" Antigonus was only conceded a kind of superintendent right over Asia. His opponents were confirmed in the possession of their satraps, Ptolemy as the ruler of Egypt, Lyssimachus of Thrace. Seleucus continued his struggle to regain Babylon from Antigonus and was not a part of the peace process. Cassander was to have power over the kingdom of Macedonia, so long as the young Alexander IV remained a minor. This being the death wish on the young king, in 310 B.C. Cassander had him and his mother Roxane put to death, ending the Argean dynasty.

The peace of 311 B.C. also guaranteed the freedom of the Greek cities. The cities were formally declared autonomous. The truce of 311 B.C. was nothing more than temporary rest, since the ambitions of all involved could not be suppressed. Ptolemy wanted to recover the whole of Syria and Phoenicia, while Antigonus wanted to deal with Seleucus in the east. War between the successor broke out again on year later and basically lasted until Antigonus' death. The basic contention was absolute power over the remains of Alexander's Empire or the powerful independent Satraps. The battle of Ippus would decide which course the Empire would follow.

In 302 Deleterius resuscitated the Confederation of Corinth, all Hellenic states(with the exception of Sparta, Messenia and Thessally) sent their representatives to the constituent session of the Hellenic Alliance, and elected Antigonus and Demetrius as its protector. Demetrius immediately took all the forces available and marched with the intention of finishing off Cassander. Cassander sued for peace, but Antigonus, sure of victory, however refused.24 Cassander answered to Antigonus refusal was a new alliance against Antigonus.

Th Alliance by Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Seleucus planned a combined attack from the east and west at Antigonus' Kingdom. Attacks on Antigonus' positions in Asia came from all sides, and the situation became so serious that Antigonus recalled Demetrius with his army from Greece to Asia to counter opposing forces. The decisive battle was fought at Ipsus in 301 B.C. The members of the coalition although slightly weaker in infantry possessed a superiority in elephants which Seleucus put in the field were opposed by only 75 of Antigonus. Along with the superiority in elephants the decisive moment in the battle came when Demetrius led a successful cavalry charge, carried away with the excitement of victory that Demetrius left the main body and was never able to get back into position. When Antigonus phalanx was broken, the old king refused to leave the battle and Demetrius unable to return to rescue his father led to Antigonus being mortally wounded. Without Demetrius and Antigonus dead the battle was lost.25 The battle of Ipsus buried the idea of a single undivided empire and instead established the foundation of independent Hellenistic states.

• 1. Pierre Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928). pg. 120.
• 2. F. W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 1992) pg. 48.
• 3. Richard A. Billows, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. (Berkeley, CA: University Press, 1990.) pg. 55.
• 4. Peter Green, Alexander to Actium. (Berkeley, California: University Press, 1990. pg. 9.
• 5. Waldemar Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander's Empire. (New York: Routledge Press, 1992) pg. 135.
• 6. Pierre Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928). pg. 129.
• 7. Richard A. Billows, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. (Berkeley, CA: University Press, 1990.) pg. 17.
• 8. Hammond and Griffith, History of Macedonia 2, pt. I:3-200.
• 9. Richard A. Billows, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. (Berkeley, CA: University Press, 1990.) pg. 17.
• 10. Waldemar Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander's Empire. (New York: Routledge Press, 1992) pg. 52.
• 11. Ibid., 52.
• 12. Richard A. Billows, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. (Berkeley, CA: University Press, 1990.) pg. 17.
• 13. Ibid., 9.
• 14. Ibid., 11.
• 15. Ibid., 11.
• 16. Ibid., 57.
• 17. Waldemar Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander's Empire. (New York: Routledge Press, 1992) pg. 52.
• 18. Peter Green, Alexander to Actium. (Berkeley, California: University Press, 1990. pg. 9.
• 19. Ibid., 14.
• 20. Ibid., 14.
• 21. Ibid., 17.
• 22. Pierre Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928). pg. 129
• 23. Herman Bengston, History of Greece.(Canada: Ottowa Press, 1988) pg. 228.
• 24. Peter Green, Alexander to Actium. (Berkeley, California: University Press, 1990. pg. 34
• 25. Ibid., pg. 34

Bengston, Herman. History of Greece. Canada: Ottowa Press, 1988.

Billows, Richard A. Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. Berkeley, CA: University Press, 1990.

Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium. Berkeley, California: University Press, 1990.

Hammond and Griffith, History of Macedonia 2.

Heckel, Waldemar. The Marshals of Alexander's Empire. New York: Routledge Press, 1992.

Jouguet, Peter. Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928.

Walbank, F. W. The Hellenistic World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 1992.