| |
The Partition of Babylon was the first of the
conferences and ensuing agreements that divided the territories of Alexander
the Great. It was held at Babylon in June 323 BC. Alexander’s death at the
age of 32 had left an empire that stretched from Greece all the way to India.
The issue of succession resulted from the claims of the various supporters of
Philip Arrhidaeus (Alexander’s half-brother), and the as-of-then unborn
child of Alexander and Roxana, among others. The settlement saw Arrhidaeus and
Alexander’s child designated as joint kings with Perdiccas serving as
regent. The territories of the empire became satrapies divided between the
senior officers of the Macedonian army and some local governors and rulers. The
partition was solidified at the further agreements at Triparadisus and
Persepolis[1] over the following years and began the series of conflicts that
comprise the Wars of the Diadochi. The term "Partition of Babylon" is
a modern designation.
Definition of partition Territorial boundaries were to remain in question for
the rest of the century, until 300 BC. The two main sources on the
"Partition of Babylon" use equivocal language concerning it.
According to Diodorus Siculus, a coalition of factions in the army
"established" (kathestesan) that Arridaeus, son of Philip, should be
king, and his name changed to Philip.[2] Perdiccas, "to whom the dying
king had given his finger-ring", was to be "caretaker"
(epimeletes). The most worthy of the companions were to "succeed"
(paralabein) to the satrapies, and obey the king and Perdiccas. Alexander and
Philip before him had not merely been kings, they were "leaders"
(hegemones) in the League of Corinth. Perdiccas was not merely to be the king's
manager, he was to succeed to the Hegemony, which apparently the king did not.
"Holding a council" (sunedreusas) as Hegemon, he assigned the various
satrapies. A catalogue of assignments follows. To this point it appears to be a
list of successions, or promotions. Then Diodorus says: "the satrapies
were partitioned (emeristhesan) in this way." The word is based on
"part" (meros). It is not the Companions who are being promoted to
Satraps, but the satrapies that are being divided and distributed to the
Companions, which is a different concept. Satraps who own their satrapies do
not need a king. Quintus Curtius Rufus, who wrote more extensively about the
transition, says much the same thing.[3] Holding a "council of the chief
men" (consilium principum virorum); that is, the sunedrion, Perdiccas
divides the imperium, or "Empire", between the top rank (summa) held
by the king and the satrapes. He clarifies, "the empire having been
divided into parts" (divisis imperii partibus), or partitioned between
individuals who could defend or choose to expand them. He points out that those
who a little before had been ministri under the king now fought to expand their
own "kingdoms" (regna) under the mask of fighting for the empire.
Johann Gustav Droysen, innovator of the historical concepts of a Hellenistic
Period divided it into a Diadochi Period and an Epigoni Period, and adopted
Curtius' view of the result of the sunedrion at Babylon as a partition. He
refers to the "First Partition of the Satrapies" (Erste Verteilung
der Satrapien).[4] Droysen's view is that Perdiccas distributed the satrapies
with a view toward removing his opponents from among the Companions at the
scene; thus the changes were never legitimate promotions of Diadochi, persons
who expected advancement within the Empire. George Grote, the
Parliamentarian-turned-historian within the British Empire, did not share this
skeptical view, at least of the assignments at Babylon. He says: "All the
above-named officers were considered as local lieutenants, administering
portions of an empire one and indivisible, under Arridaeus. ... No one at this
moment talked of dividing the empire."[5] Droysen's view prevailed.
Contemporaneously with the two, another parliamentarian and historian, Edward
Bunbury, was using the concepts of Droysen, not Grote, in the standard
reference works being chaired by William Smith.[6] The differences in point of
view derive from the ancient historians themselves. They in turn were
categorizing the conflict as they knew or read of it. For example, Ptolemy I
Soter asks for and receives from Perdiccas as Hegemon promotion to Satrap of
Egypt. There he disposes of the Nomarch of Alexandria appointed by Alexander.
Thereafter he refers to himself for the next nearly 20 years as Satrap, even
though there was then no empire. Finally in 305, when all hope of empire was
gone, he declares himself Pharaoh of Egypt. Meanwhile, he perpetuates the
cultural legacy of Alexander, most notably with the musaion and library, and
the recruitment of population for Alexandria from many different nations.
Historians of Ptolemy divide his biography into Ptolemy Satrap and Ptolemy
Basileus. Earlier it was Ptolemy Hetairos. The term "Diadochos" was
used by the historians to mean any and all of these statuses. Background
Background Alexander died on June 11, 323 BC, in the early hours of the
morning. He had given his signet ring to his second-in-command, Perdiccas, on
the previous day, according to the main account, that of Quintus Curtius Rufus,
in History of Alexander,[7] which is summarized here. Curtius claims that
Alexander predicted his own death, as well as the chaos resulting from it.
Modern authorities disagree on whether or not this report is true, but if it
is, Alexander's prediction would not have required the gift of clairvoyance and
would have been largely stating the obvious; he had been dealing with mutiny
among the Macedonian troops since before the expedition to India. At that time
he formed a special unit of Persian young men, the Epigoni, to be armed and
trained in Macedonian ways. On his return from India he hired them exclusively
as his bodyguards. The handful of Macedonian generals officially titled
bodyguards he used as senior staff officers. He was covered with old wounds
from head to foot. He was seriously ill days before his death.
Council in Babylon On the day of his death the Somatophylakes announced a
council, to which they invited the main Hetairoi (officers of the cavalry) and
the line officers of the infantry, to be held at the royal quarters. Disobeying
orders and ignoring the invitation list, the common soldiers pushed their way
in, displacing many officers. Yielding to the inevitable, the somatophylakes
allowed them to stay and to vote at the council. Voting was by voice, except
for beating on the shield with the spear, which signified "nay".
Perdiccas opened by exposing (the manner is not stated) Alexander's
"chair", from which he rendered official decisions. On it were his
diadem, robe, cuirass and signet ring, which he was accustomed to wear when he
spoke ex cathedra. At the sight of them the crowd grieved volubly. Perdiccas
addressed the grief, saying that the gods had given them Alexander for an
appointed time, and now that it was over, they had taken him back. He pointed
out their position as conquerors among the conquered. It was vital to their
continuance, he said, that they have a "head". Whether it is one or
many is in your "power". He thus raised the main issue, the question
of "one" or "many". Roxana, Alexander's Bactrian wife, was
six months into her pregnancy. He suggested that they choose someone to rule.
The floor was open for discussion.
Proposals Nearchus, the fleet commander, proposed Heracles, the illegitimate
son of Alexander by his Persian mistress Barsine, be made king. Because
Heracles was a bastard, and possibly because Nearchus himself was a Greek and,
even worse, a Cretan, proverbial liars, his proposal was poorly received.[8]
The vote was "nay". Ptolemy took the floor to say that selecting
either child would be a disgrace (piget), because their mothers were
"captives" (captivi), and what would be the good of conquest if the
conquered ruled the conquerors? Aristonous of Pella proposed the ring be
restored to Perdiccas as Alexander’s choice. The vote was "aye".
For whatever reason, Perdiccas stood for some time without reply. Then he moved
behind the somatophylakes. Curtius is of the opinion that he wished to be
begged to take the position. His behavior was taken as a refusal. His enemies
took advantage of the opening. Meleager saw in the confusion a chance to attack
Perdiccas. There was no difference, he said, in voting for either Perdiccas or
Heracles, as the former would rule anyway as "guardian" (tutela). The
implication is that Perdiccas had some sort of legal guardianship of
Alexander's children that would automatically apply even if they were voted
kings. If the soldiers really were the deciding authority, he said, then why
should they not enrich themselves by plundering the treasury? Amidst the uproar
he gave the appearance of leading away an armed party to do just that,
"the assembly having turned to sedition and discord".[9] An ordinary
soldier saved the day by standing forward to shout that there was no need for
civil war when Arrhidaeus, Alexander's half-brother, was the legal heir. They
would never find another Alexander. Why should his heir be defrauded of his
inheritance? The crowd became suddenly silent, to be followed by a loud
positive voice vote. Too late, Peithon began to speak in opposition –
Arrhidaeus was mentally disabled[10] – but was shouted down.[11]
Development of factions The soldiers, though allowed a vote, were not
officially part of the council. Peithon proposed that it appoint Perdiccas and
Leonnatus "Guardians" of Hercules, while Craterus and Antipater were
to "administer" Europe. The appointments were adopted without
consulting Arrhidaeus. Meleager left and returned with Arrhidaeus, shouting for
assistance from the soldiers. Two factions had now developed, one for
Perdiccas, and one for the Arrhidaeans, supported by Meleager. In the uproar;
Arrhidaeus escaped in fear. The crowd called him back, placing Alexander's robe
around him. Meleager put on his armor in public view, preparing to defend
Arrhidaeus. The soldiers threatened bodily harm to the Bodyguards. They
rejoiced that the "empire" would remain in the same family. According
to Peter Green, "xenophobia played its part here: the Macedonian rank and
file did not relish the prospect of kowtowing to a half-Oriental
monarch."[8] The party for Meleager collected so many adherents that
Perdiccas, "terrified" , called for 600 elite troops, "the royal
guard of young men"; that is, the unit of Persian Epigoni formed by
Alexander to protect him from his men, under Ptolemy, and took up a defensive
position around the quarters where Alexander's body yet lay. They would not be
in favor of a faction that rejected Alexander's children because their mothers
were Persian. Military action began. Missiles rained in on the defenders. The
situation having gotten out of control, the senior officers with Meleager took
off their helmets so that they could be identified and called to Perdiccas to
surrender. He had no choice. He put down his arms, followed by the Epigoni
putting down theirs. Meleager commanded them to remain in place while he hunted
Perdiccas, but the latter escaped to the Euphrates River, where he was
reinforced by the Hetairoi cavalry under Leonnatus. It seems clear, Alexander's
most trusted men backed Perdiccas. Meleager sent a commission of assassins to
ask Perdiccas to return, with secret orders to kill him if he hesitated.
Meeting them with a bodyguard of 16 Epigoni, Perdiccas reviled them as they
approached. They returned, having accomplished nothing. The day ended.
War of nerves The next day, seeing who was not in their party, the soldiers of
Meleager's faction had second thoughts. A mutiny developed. Representatives
undertook to interrogate Arrhidaeus as to whether he had ordered
Perdiccas’ arrest. He said that he did, but that it was at Meleager's
instigation. He refused action against Perdiccas. The council that had been
called the previous day was officially terminated. They were hoping Perdiccas
would dismiss his men, but he did not. Instead he moved against the supply
lines, cutting off the supply of grain. He did not dare attack the city, as the
odds were overwhelming. Under properly skilled generals, the forces in the city
might have sallied out to break the blockade and crush its instigators, but the
defenders took no action. Famine began. Holding another council, the
Macedonians in the city decided the king should send emissaries to Perdiccas to
ask for terms of peace. In terms of forces the opposite should have been true,
but Perdiccas knew he had all the generals on his side. Moreover, according to
Plutarch in Life of Eumenes, one of the Hetairoi, Eumenes, had remained behind
and was trying to convince the soldiers to come to terms. Perdiccas demanded an
investigation into what he was calling the sedition and that the leaders should
be turned over to him. Even Arrhidaeus could see that he was after Meleager.
With tears running down his cheeks Arrhidaeus addressed the assembly, stating
that he would give up the throne rather than that any more blood should be
shed. He offered the crown to any who should affirm they were qualified to take
it. This natural goodness moved the assembly to reaffirm his position. Eumenes
managed to sway Meleager's troops to a less belligerent position, proposing a
compromise in which Arrhidaeus would be made king, and, if Roxana's child
proved to be a son, he should be made joint king with Arrhidaeus.[12] According
to Curtius, the assembly sacrificed "the old view of the kingship".
They sent emissaries to Perdiccas asking to set up a triumvirate of
"chiefs": Arrhidaeus, Perdiccas and Meleager. Perdiccas accepted,
explains Curtius, hoping to divide Meleager from Arrhidaeus. Arrhidaeus was
made king and renamed Philip III, while Alexander's and Roxana's child, who
would indeed be a son, would become Alexander IV.[12]
Victory of Perdiccas's faction Meleager rode out at the head of his forces to
enact a truce. As the men came together, Perdiccas’ troops began to
complain that they should have to accept Meleager as duke. Curtius says that
Perdiccas put them up to it. Meleager lost his temper. The two leaders
embraced. Meleager complained to Perdiccas of what he had heard. The two agreed
to purge the whole army of its divisive elements. The ceremony of
reconciliation, based on Macedonian practice, required assembly of both sides
under arms in a field between the bowels of a sacrificed dog. The two sides
would then proceed to each other and intermingle. Meleager’s infantry in
battle array faced the Hetairoi cavalry enhanced by elephants. The infantry
flinched as the cavalry started toward them but stood fast. The king, however,
had conferred with Perdiccas about the sedition. As the gap narrowed, he rode
up and down the line singling out the leaders who had stood with Meleager
against Perdiccas. He was not informed of Perdiccas' intention. As the two
sides closed, Perdiccas's men, perhaps the Epigoni, arrested 300 known leaders
of sedition, dragging them away for immediate execution, by one account by
being trampled by war elephants goaded on for the purpose.[13] Initially
Meleager was spared and was appointed Perdiccas's deputy (hyparchos), but after
the crisis had passed and the situation was again under control, Meleager, who
saw them coming for him, took refuge in a temple, where he was murdered.[14]
The army meanwhile mingled and the schism was healed.
Another council in Babylon Perdiccas, as epimeletes (guardian or regent) and
with the authority conferred by Alexander's seal ring, summoned a new council,
in the language of ancient legislators, "to which it was pleasing to
divide the empire". Most of the great marshals were present, but three
were not. Antipater, who had been in charge of Macedonia, was in Pella.
Alexander had summoned Antipater to Babylon a few months before his death, but
Antipater, suspecting he would be killed if he went, sent his son Cassander
instead. Craterus, whom Alexander had appointed to replace Antipater, was on
his way to Europe with Polyperchon and ten thousand veterans. They had reached
Cilicia, when they learned of Alexander's death, and decided to stay there
until they received further news. Antigonus One-Eye, who was commander of
central Phrygia and responsible for keeping the route to Europe open, stayed
where he was, in the fortress at Celaenae.[12] Nevertheless, the partition took
place forthwith, the divisions apparently being negotiated ad hoc, as Ptolemy
was able to ask for and received the satrapy of Egypt. "Ptolemy was one of
the few to realize that limiting his ambitions would actually get him farther
in the long run."[15] Europe had not yet been divided into satrapies.
There was no need to replace any eastern satraps. Perdiccas believed he was
carrying out Alexander's plans, extending the modified Persian Empire into
Greece, western Asia and Africa. He insisted on the supreme authority in the
name of the king. Shortly that fiction was to be assaulted, ending in the
second of the three partitions, which was an overt one manifestly to all. After
the partition the council turned to the business of disposing of Alexander's
body, which had lain unburied for seven days. The date of the partition was
therefore June 18, 323 BC, or near it.
Ancient sources Curtius is the main source for the events immediately following
the death of Alexander. No one else presents the same depth of detail. For the
distribution of satrapies in the partition there are some several sources, not
all of equal value. The only complete account is Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca
historica, which was also the first to be written, c. 40 BC, and should thus be
considered the more reliable source.[16] The Byzantine bishop Photius (c.
820–893) produced an epitome of 279 books in his Bibliotheca, which
contains two relevant (but much abbreviated) accounts.[17] The first is
Arrian's Continuation or After Alexander (codex 92).[18] The second is
Dexippus's History of events after Alexander (codex 82),[19] which itself seems
to be based on Arrian's account; compare Arrian: Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and
the country on the shore of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (a Greek colony from
Sinope), to Eumenes with Dexippus: Eumenes Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and the
shores of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (Trebizond). However, the epitome of
Dexippus contains some information which was presumably excerpted from the
epitome of Arrian. The final source is Justin's epitome of Pompeius Trogus's
Philippic History, which is probably the latest source and diverges from the
other sources, seemingly containing several obvious mistakes.[20] All the
latter sources seem to have read (and to an extent copied) Diodorus, or the
most likely source of Diodorus's list, Hieronymus of Cardia. One passage in
particular (see below) is very similarly worded in all accounts, although
ironically this same passage contains most of the ambiguities that are to be
found. It is possible there is a copying error in Justin's work; the name of a
satrap often occurs adjacent to the satrapy that Diodorus allots them (but not
directly associated with it). Pelasgia does not appear to have been the name of
a real Persian or Greek satrapy and the insertion of this word may have shifted
the satraps by one place in the list, dislocating them. In addition, Armenia
(not mentioned as a satrapy in any other account) may be a mistake for Carmania
(which occurs in the same place in Diodorus's list). One possible
interpretation of the passage would be:
would be: Amyntas was allotted the Bactrians, Scythaeus the Sogdians, Nicanor;
the Parthians, Philippus; the Hyrcanians, Phrataphernes; the Armenians (the
Carmanians), Tleptolemus; the Persians, Peucestes; the Babylonians, Archon; the
Pelasgians Arcesilaus, Mesopotamia. By removing one (apparently meaningless)
word and slightly altering the punctuation, five satraps now match the satrapy
allotted to them in Diodorus. However, it is clear that the problems with this
passage are more extensive, and cannot be easily resolved.
Europe Macedon, Greece and Epirus All sources agree that Antipater became
governor of Macedon and Greece; Arrian adds Epirus to this. Arrian also
suggests that this region was shared with Craterus, whereas Dexippus has
"the general charge of affairs and the defence of the kingdom was
entrusted to Craterus". Illyria Arrian explicitly includes Illyria within
Antipater's remit; Diodorus says that "Macedonia and the adjacent peoples
were assigned to Antipater". However, Justin has 'Philo' as governor of
Illyria; there is no apparent other mention of Philo in the sources, so it is
possible this is a mistake by Justin. Thrace All sources agree that Lysimachus
became governor of "Thrace and the Chersonese, together with the countries
bordering on Thrace as far as Salmydessus on the Euxine". Asia Minor
Greater Phrygia, Lesser/Hellespontine Phrygia, Cappadocia and Paphlagonia,
Lydia and Cilicia All sources agree on the distribution of these satrapies to,
respectively, Antigonus, Leonnatus, Eumenes of Cardia, Menander and Philotas.
Caria Diodorus has Asander as satrap, but Arrian and Justin have Cassander.
Since Asander was definitely satrap of Caria after the Partition of
Triparadisus, it is possible that both Arrian and Justin have mistaken Asander
for the better-known Cassander (or that the name has changed during later
copying/translation etc.). Lycia and Pamphylia Both Diodorus and Arrian have
Antigonus receiving these satrapies in addition to Greater Phrygia, whereas
Justin has Nearchus receiving both of them. This is possibly another mistake by
Justin; Nearchus was satrap of Lycia and Pamphylia from 334 to 328 BC.[21][22]
Africa Egypt, Libya and Arabia All sources agree that these regions
("Egypt and Libya, and of that part of Arabia that borders upon
Egypt") were given to Ptolemy, son of Lagus.
Western Asia Syria, Mesopotamia All sources agree that these regions were given
to Laomedon of Mytilene and Arcesilaus respectively. The next satrapies moving
eastward are much more problematic, with Justins's account widely diverging
from both Diodorus and Arrian/Dexippus. The following passage is the source of
most of these differences: The Arachosians and Gedrosians were assigned to
Sibyrtius; the Drancae and Arci to Stasanor. Amyntas was allotted the
Bactrians, Scythaeus the Sogdians, Nicanor the Parthians, Philippus the
Hyrcanians, Phrataphernes the Armenians, Tlepolemus the Persians, Peucestes the
Babylonians, Archon the Pelasgians, Arcesilaus, Mesopotamia. This passage seems
to be directly derived from Diodorus, listing the satrapies in more-or-less the
same order, cf. He gave Arachosia and Cedrosia to Sibyrtius, Aria and
Dranginê to Stasanor of Soli, Bactrianê and Sogdianê to
Philip, Parthia and Hyrcania to Phrataphernes, Persia to Peucestes, Carmania to
Tlepolemus, Media to Atropates, Babylonia to Archon, and Mesopotamia to
Arcesilaüs. Pelasgia does not appear in any other accounts, and does not
seem to have been a real satrapy; it is possible that the insertion of this
word has caused some of the satraps to shift by one place in the interpretation
of Justin's passage.Note 1 In addition, Armenia, also not mentioned in any
other accounts as a satrapy may be a mistake for Carmania (which appears in the
same position in Diodorus's list). The equivalent passage is missing from
Arrian, although it does appear in Dexippus – albeit with its own
mistakes: Siburtius ruled the Arachosians and Gedrosians; Stasanor of Soli the
Arei and Drangi; Philip the Sogdiani; Radaphernes the Hyrcanians; Neoptolemus
the Carmanians; Peucestes the Persians ... Babylon was given to Seleucus,
Mesopotamia to Archelaus. Radaphernes is presumably Phrataphernes, and Dexippus
has possibly confused Tlepolemus (clearly named by Arrian, Justin and Diodorus)
with Neoptolemus (another of Alexander's generals). It is well established that
Seleucus only became satrap of Babylonia at the second partition (the Partition
of Triparadisus), so Dexippus may have mixed up the two partitions at this
point.
Babylonia Since Diodorus is the more reliable text, and there seem to be
mistakes here in both Justin and Dexippus, the probability is that Archon of
Pella was satrap of Babylonia. Persia Since Diodorus and Dexippus both agree on
Peucestas being satrap of Persia, this is probably the case. Carmania
Tlepolemus was definitely satrap of Carmania after the second partition, and
Diodorus places him as satrap at the first partition, so this was probably the
case. Hyrcania and Parthia Diodorus allots these regions to Phrataphernes, and
Dexippus also has (Ph)rataphernes as satrap of Hyrcania, so it was probably the
case that these two adjacent regions were governed by this native Persian.
Phrataphernes had been satrap of these regions during Alexander's lifetime,[23]
and therefore his retention of these satrapies corresponds with Arrian's
statement that: "At the same time several provinces remained under their
native rulers, according to the arrangement made by Alexander, and were not
affected by the distribution." Lesser Media All sources agree that this
was given to Atropates, who was also a native Persian, and satrap of Media
under Alexander.[24] Greater Media Diodorus and Dexippus allot this to Peithon.
Justin says that: "Atropatus was set over the Greater Media; the
father-in-law of Perdiccas over the Less(er)". However, Atropates was the
father-in-law of Perdiccas,[24] so Justin is clearly confused on this point.
Since Peithon was definitely satrap of Greater Media after the second
partition, it is likely he also was at the first. Susiana Neither Diodorus nor
Arrian/Dexippus mention Susiana at the first partition, but both mention it at
the second partition; it was therefore a real satrapy. Only Justin gives a
name, Scynus, for this satrapy at the first partition, but this person is not
apparently mentioned elsewhere.
Central Asia Bactria and Sogdiana Diodorus has Philip as satrap of both these
regions; Dexippus also has Philip as Satrap of Sogdiana, but does not mention
Bactria. Justin, however, names Amyntas and Scytheaus as satraps of Bactria and
Sogdiana. This is the most problematic part of Justin's account, which is
clearly completely at variance with the other accounts. Amyntas and Scythaeus
are not apparent in other records of the period, and their presence here is not
easy to explain. Drangiana and Aria, Arachosia and Gedrosia All accounts are
consistent in naming Stasanor and Sibyrtius as respective satraps of these two
double satrapies. Paropamisia Diodorus and Dexippus both have Alexander's
father-in-law Oxyartes, a native Bactrian, as ruler of this region. Justin has
"Extarches" which is presumably a corrupted version of Oxyartes.
Oxyartes was another native ruler left in the position to which Alexander
appointed him. Indus and Punjab Diodorus and Dexippus name Porus and Taxiles as
satraps of these regions respectively; these are two more native rulers left in
the position given to them by Alexander. Justin concurs with Taxiles in Punjab,
and does not mention Indus. Indian Colonies All sources agree that another
Peithon, the son of Agenor was ruler of the rest of the Indian territory not
given to Taxiles and Porus. Exactly where this was is somewhat uncertain.
Diodorus describes it as: "To Pithon he gave the satrapy next to Taxiles
and the other kings" whereas Dexippus has: "Porus and Taxilus were
rulers of India, to Porus being allotted the country between the Indus and the
Hydaspes, the rest to Taxilus. Pithon received the country of the neighbouring
peoples, except the Paramisades", and Justin says: "To the colonies
settled in India, Python, the son of Agenor, was sent."
Summary table, Babylon and Triparadisus Partition of Babylon Partition of
Triparadisus Role or Region Diodorus Siculus Justin Arrian+ / Dexippus*
Diodorus Siculus Arrian King of Macedon Philip III Philip III Philip III+
Philip III and Alexander IV Philip III and Alexander IV Regent Perdiccas
Perdiccas Perdiccas+ Antipater Antipater Commander of the Companions Seleucus
Seleucus n/a Cassander Cassander Commander of the Guards n/a Cassander n/a n/a
n/a Macedon Antipater Antipater Antipater+* and Craterus+ Antipater Antipater
Illyria Antipater Philo Antipater+* and Craterus+ Antipater Antipater Epirus
Antipater n/a Antipater+* and Craterus+ Antipater Antipater Greece Antipater
Antipater Antipater+* and Craterus+ Antipater Antipater Thrace Lysimachus
Lysimachus Lysimachus+* Lysimachus Lysimachus Hellespontine Phrygia Leonnatus
Leonnatus+* Leonnatus Arrhidaeus Arrhidaeus Greater Phrygia Antigonus Antigonus
Antigonus+* Antigonus Antigonus Pamphylia Antigonus Nearchus Antigonus+*
Antigonus Antigonus Lycia Antigonus Nearchus Antigonus+* Antigonus Antigonus
Caria Asander Cassander Cassander+ Asander Asander Lydia Menander Menander
Menander+* Cleitus the White Cleitus the White Cappadocia Eumenes Eumenes
Eumenes+* Nicanor Nicanor Paphlagonia Eumenes Eumenes Eumenes+* Nicanor?
Nicanor? Cilicia Philotas Philotas Philotas+* Philoxenus Philoxenus Egypt
Ptolemy Ptolemy Ptolemy+* Ptolemy Ptolemy Syria Laomedon Laomedon Laomedon+*
Laomedon Laomedon Mesopotamia Arcesilaus Arcesilaus Arcesilaus* Amphimachus
Amphimachus Babylonia Archon Peucestas Seleucus* Seleucus Seleucus Pelasgia n/a
Archon n/a n/a n/a Greater Media Peithon Atropates Peithon* Peithon Peithon
Lesser Media Atropates Atropates n/a n/a n/a Susiana n/a Scynus n/a Antigenes
Antigenes Persia Peucestas Tlepolemus Peucestas* Peucestas Peucestas Carmania
Tlepolemus n/a Neoptolemus* Tlepolemus Tlepolemus Armenia n/a Phrataphernes n/a
n/a n/a Hyrcania Phrataphernes Philip Phrataphernes Philip? Philip? Parthia
Phrataphernes Nicanor n/a Philip Philip Sogdiana Philip Scythaeus Philip*
Stasanor Stasanor Bactria Philip Amyntas n/a 1 Stasanor Stasanor Drangiana
Stasanor Stasanor Stasanor* Stasander Stasander Aria Stasanor Stasanor
Stasanor* Stasander Stasander Arachosia Sibyrtius Sibyrtius Sibyrtius* n/a
Sibyrtius Gedrosia Sibyrtius Sibyrtius Sibyrtius* n/a Sibyrtius? 2 Paropamisia
Oxyartes Oxyartes? 3 Oxyartes* Oxyartes Oxyartes Punjab Taxiles Taxiles
Taxiles* Taxiles Taxiles Indus Porus Peithon, son of Agenor Porus* Porus Porus
Gandhara Peithon, son of Agenor Peithon, son of Agenor Peithon, son of Agenor
Peithon, son of Agenor Peithon, son of Agenor Table notes 1=There is a
suggestion in Dexippus and Arrian that Oxyartes was left as satrap of Bactria
2=Not explicitly stated, but probable 3=Reading Oxyartes for Justin's
"Extarches"
|
|
