6. RELACIÓN DE LOS MODELOS Y PUNTOS DE INFLEXIÓN
6.3. Puntos de inflexión de modelo de gestión del conocimiento y modelo VM
Despite the extended period of time in which Cassander occupied an office of significant importance between 323 and 319, Antipater overlooked his son as an appropriate successor to the regency of Macedon. Instead Antipater chose to appoint Polyperchon. Therefore it is necessary to engage with Polyperchon’s career over the same period in order to understand what may have caused Antipater to make the choice he did. This period marks the point in time during which Antipater and Polyperchon came into close contact with each other and engaged in a co-operative and effective working relationship.
Though it is possible that the two had become acquainted prior to Alexander’s Persian Campaign in 334, explicit references to their association are extant within the ancient literary sources in the post-323 Macedonian Empire, particularly in the accounts of Diodorus and Justin. Much like Cassander, Polyperchon was appointed to significant military and political offices between 323 and 319. Cassander spent the majority of this time in Asia Minor serving in the agema and as chiliarch under Antigonus. Polyperchon spent the entirety of this period under the command of Craterus, in the European Sphere of the Macedonian Empire. As Craterus’ second in command, Polyperchon would play a
significant role during the First War of the Diadochoi, most notably in his military activities against the Aetolians and the Thessalians.
In much the same way as references to Cassander, explicit references to Polyperchon at this time are few and far between. This does not prove as fundamentally problematic for this investigation as it initially appears. As with Cassander’s appointment to the agema between 323 and 322 which attached him to the nearby vicinity of the royals, thereby providing a helpful fixture for his whereabouts, Polyperchon’s position operates in much the same manner. Because Alexander had placed Polyperchon under Craterus to assume his position should he fall, Polyperchon was required to maintain close proximity to Craterus. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that if Craterus’ location can be determined, and unless an explicit reference places him away from his commander, Polyperchon’s orientation can also be ascertained.
The outbreak of the First Diadoch War in 321 brought Polyperchon to the forefront in the chaotic political environment of the post-Alexander Macedonian Empire. When Antipater and Craterus embarked into Asia Minor to lend their strength against the Perdiccan faction they required a capable and effective man who could be trusted to take temporary control of the regency in their absence. This was more vital than ever in light of the recent Greek uprising that had destabilised Macedonian control over the region. The man chosen was Polyperchon. That he was appointed to this position is an indication that Polyperchon was seen to have the skills and personal abilities need to carry out important and potentially problematic duties.
It must be kept in mind that Polyperchon’s original appointment under the frail Craterus by Alexander in 324 was so that, in the event of Craterus’ death, Polyperchon would be able to assume Craterus’ position as leader of the 10,000 veterans returning to Macedon, as well as the regency itself. While Craterus did in fact make a successful, albeit delayed, return to Macedon in 322, he met his end during the period under investigation. During the First Diadoch War, Craterus was killed falling from his horse while on campaign against Eumenes
near the Hellespont. His death resulted in Polyperchon’s further elevation in the political hierarchy in Macedon. His connection to Craterus may have influenced Antipater’s ultimate decision to name Polyperchon as the next regent of Macedon.
As previously stated,563 at the time of Alexander’s death, Polyperchon was in
Cilicia, accompanying Craterus and his returning veteran force back to Macedon.564 It is appropriate at this time to discuss the nature of Alexander’s
appointment of Polyperchon to Craterus’ returning army. This discussion is fundamental in understanding Polyperchon’s career between 323 and 319. His connection to Craterus and Alexander would define his approach to gaining, and maintaining, power in Macedon after the death of Antipater. Alexander was not confident that Craterus’ health would allow his safe return to Macedon. Due to this uncertainty surrounding Craterus’ strength, Alexander knew that careful consideration was needed before naming the man to be Craterus’ second in command. Polyperchon and Craterus were familiar with each other, having been together during Alexander’s expansion of the Macedonian Empire.565 The
relationship which existed between them may have been seen as aiding in the transition of power should Polyperchon be required to take Craterus’ place thereby minimising delay in the veterans’ return to Macedon, another factor making him an appealing choice for Craterus’ second in command.
More significant are the consequences that may have arisen from the hand over of power from Craterus to Polyperchon once he had led the army back to Macedon. Arrian’s account provides some insight into the expectations
563 cf Ch. 4. p. 81.
564 Arr. 7.12.4; Diod. 18.4.1; Just. 12.12.8; Badian, JHS. 81. (1961). pp. 35-6;
Berve, Vol. II. 1926. p. 225; Bosworth, CQ. 21. (1971). p. 125; Errington, JHS. 90. (1970). p. 55; Meeus, Anc. Soc. 38. (2008). p. 78.
565 Heckel, 2006. p. 227, p. 335. n. 623; cf. Arr. 4.23.5, 4.24.6-7, 2.26.1-27.4,
5.11.3, 6.5.5. The closeness of the pair towards the end of Alexander’s campaigns could explain for the confusion between Craterus and Polyperchon that regularly appears in Justin’s account (Just. 13.8.5, 13.8. 7, 15.1.1, Heckel, 2006. p. 335. n. 623; cf. Yardley, Wheatley & Heckel, 2011. p. 158, 189, 218.).
Alexander had of Polyperchon once he had taken control of Craterus’ men.566
This excerpt implies that Polyperchon was expected to continue Craterus’ orders in the transfer of troops to Macedon. By guiding the veterans from Opis home, Polyperchon would then have enabled Antipater the possibility to embark eastwards with the levies he was ordered to bring to Alexander. What is not known is Polyperchon’s role once he arrived in Macedon. This can only be speculated upon, as Craterus was able to complete his mission, in 322, although substantially delayed.567 Polyperchon’s appointment by Alexander was not
without thought; it was deliberate and calculated, and it should not be dismissed as an unimportant short-term military appointment. As Arrian states, Alexander was well aware of Craterus’ frailty before his embarkation to Macedon where he would replace Antipater as regent.568 The possibility that Polyperchon was
merely expected, in the event of Craterus’ death, to lead the army back to Macedon and await a new replacement for Antipater to arrive from Babylon does not seem likely as it dismisses Polyperchon’s political and military acumen. If he were not expected to assume Craterus’ regency, further delays would face Antipater with regard to his command from Macedon into the east. Craterus’ ill health was known prior to his departure to Macedon. That Polyperchon was appointed as second in command suggests that in the event of Craterus’ death, Polyperchon would assume all duties originally intended for Craterus. Not only would he lead the veterans back to Macedon, he would also relieve Antipater of the regency of Macedon. This possibility needs to be entertained as if this was not what was expected of Polyperchon, his appointment by Alexander is puzzling. A more likely alternative is that, because Alexander was aware that Craterus’s safe return to Macedon was uncertain, that a substitute would be required was a real possibility. To insure against further delay of Antipater’s
566 Arr. 7.12.4. 567 See below.
568 Arr. 7.12.4; Heckel, 1992. pp. 126-7; Heckel, 2006. p. 95, 98; Polyperchon was
not the only senior officer accompanying Craterus. Justin asserts that Clitus, Gorgias, Polydamus and Antigenes were also with the veterans of Opis (Just. 12.12.8; cf. Heckel, 2006, p. 31, 87, 127, 226; Yardley, Wheatley & Heckel, 2001. pp. 276-277.). Justin says nothing of Polyperchon’s position, however, when used in conjunction with the evidence from Arrian, any confusion about the
departure east, as well as to avoid the need to send an additional replacement for Craterus, Alexander named Polyperchon as second in command, a man he trusted to assume Craterus’ role in the European Sphere of the Macedonian Empire should Craterus die before reaching Macedon.
News of Alexander’s death would have reached the pair within days due to Cilicia’s placement along the famed Royal Road of the Persian Empire.569 The
news presented a difficult quandary for Craterus. Should he continue on his journey to Macedon relieving Antipater of the regency, return to Babylon and lend his voice to the court, or remain in Cilicia as the political situation developed? This lack of certainty left Craterus and Polyperchon in a state of limbo.570 While Alexander was alive, Craterus’ return to Macedon was backed by
royal authority, but soon after receiving news of Alexander’s demise, word came to Craterus that Perdiccas had chosen to end his journey to replace Antipater,571
569 Hdt. 5.52.2; French, Iran. 36. (1998). p. 16; Graf, Achaemenid History. 8.
(1994). p. 175. Young, PAPHS. 107. (1963). p. 348. For a collection of maps devoted to the Persian Royal Road, see: French, Iran. 36. (1998). pp. 34-42; After Alexander’s defeat of the Persian Empire, the Royal Road did not go unused. Alexander continued employing the Road to great effect for the relay of communications as well as allowing the swift movement of troops throughout the empire (Graf, Achaemenid History. 8. (1994). p. 174; Lane Fox, 1973. p. 103). Indeed, Alexander had used the Road himself when conducting his campaign against Darius (Arr. 2.4.2-3; Brunt, CQ. 12. (1962). p. 142.). It is highly likely that not only did Craterus and Polyperchon use the Royal Road to make their march back to Macedon, but Cassander may have travelled via this way as well during his pressing journey to represent Antipater in Alexander’s court in 324. The precise date at which the news reached Craterus and Polyperchon is unknown. However, given the speed at which the initial word of Alexander’s death reaching Athens and Macedon within the space of a few short weeks, thereby initiating the Lamian War (cf. Ch. 4. p. 101.) combined with the renowned swiftness that the Road was able to facilitate correspondence (Hdt. 5.52-53 (Herodotus states the journey between Susa and Sardis would take some ninety days on foot); 8.98; Xen. Cyrop. 8.17-19; Young, PAPHS. 107. (1963), p. 349), it can be assumed that the time required for word to reach Cilicia would be dramatically less than that taken to reach the European Sphere of the Macedonian Empire.
570 Heckel, 1992. p. 127; Schachenmeyr, 1973. p. 149. suggest that Craterus was
trapped between “Staatsrecht” and “Faustrecht.”
571 Diod. 18.4.1: states “τοῖς δαιδόχοις ἔδοξε μὴ συντελεῖν τὰ βεβουλευμένα”,
though as Meeus correctly identifies, this equates to the wishes of Perdiccas (Meeus, Anc. Soc. 38. (2008). p. 78). It is unknown whether or not Perdiccas’ orders arrived in Craterus’ camp at the same time as word of Alexander’s death. It would be expected that as the political situation in Babylon developed over
forcing Craterus to sojourn in Cilicia.572 This political limbo did not last for long.
Communications between Babylon and the rest of the empire were swift, with new information arriving to Craterus and Polyperchon constantly. They would have known that the Diadochoi in Babylon had convened to plan the continuation of the empire.573 While not having any input or voice in the
decisions made by the Diadochoi in Babylon, the order to cease his journey east suggests that Craterus was receiving updates from the capital, informing him of the proceedings of, and the decisions reached by, the council.
Although absent from the talks taking place in Babylon, Craterus’ name was prominent throughout the proceedings. During the proposition for the continuation of the Empire’s administration, Craterus was, with the support of Meleager, named as prostates of Philip III’s empire,574placing him, at least in
theory and in light of Philip III’s inability to rule in his own right, in a position of power over the entirety of the Macedonian Empire.575 However this position
was not to be his for long. Even before word reached Craterus of his new office, the situation at Babylon had changed. Perdiccas, tired of Meleager’s perceived interference in the negotiations, ordered his death. This removed him as a potential threat but also meant that the compromise they had reached was now in ruins.576 As a result, Craterus lost his position as regent of the Empire.
Following Meleager’s death, a new direction was taken. Perdiccas assumed the the time immediately after Alexander’s death that a number of dispatches were sent throughout the empire by the convening Diadochoi. Though it must be noted that the placement in the sequence of correspondence of Perdiccas’ orders halting Craterus’ march west again is not known. If it did not arrive at the same time as news of Alexander’s death, it must have arrived shortly thereafter. Motivation for Perdiccas’ order has been understood as part of his strategy to win the support of Antipater.
572 Diod. 18.4.1; Bosworth, CQ. 21. (1971). p. 125; Heckel, 2006. p. 98; Meeus,
Anc. Soc. 38. (2008). p. 78; Landucci Gattinoni, 2008. p. 40.
573 See below.
574 Arr. Succ. FGrH. 156. F. 1.3, 1.4; Anson, AHB. 26. (2012). p. 52. For details of
the office of prostates, see: Anson, CP. 87. (1992). pp. 38-43.
575 Anson, CPh. 87. (1992). pp. 38-43; Anson, Historia. 58. (2009). pp. 280-5;
Anson, AHB 26. (2012). p. 52.
regency himself,577 while Craterus was to receive a different, less well-defined
role. Along with Antipater, he was given co-command of affairs in Europe.578
This new appointment would give Craterus cause to move into Europe with haste. Polyperchon would follow, marking the point at which he would re-enter the European Sphere of the Macedonian Empire. No mention of Polyperchon is made during the proceedings at Babylon. Nor is there any mention of the position he would occupy under the new administrative regime. It is likely, however, that he continued in the original appointment given to him by Alexander in 324 as his second in command under Craterus.
Returning to Craterus in Cilicia, it is true that he was in political limbo after receiving word that Alexander was dead, news that halted his advance into Macedon. However the uncertainty of his position was not substantial and should not be exaggerated. From first meeting, the day after Alexander’s death, to final agreement among the Diadochoi, a period of only six days passed.579
Considering the speed at which news would be reaching him in Cilicia, combined with the time that the settlement took to ratify, Craterus would have known of his new office by the end of June, 323.
The results from the Settlement at Babylon have several implications for Craterus. Rather than replacing Antipater as ordered by Alexander, he was now required to move into Greece, working in co-operation with Antipater in order to manage affairs in Greece and Macedon. While Craterus may have seen this as a slight to his standing in the Empire, he seems to have accepted the position without complaint.580 Even though Antipater and Craterus were now to work
577 Diod. 18.2.2, 18.3.1, 18.23.2; Anson, Historia. 58. (2009). p. 284; Meeus,
Historia. 58. (2009). pp. 296-7; Anson, AHB. 26. (2012). p. 52.
578 Arr. Succ. FGrH. 156. F. 1.7; cf. Diod. 18.4.1-6; Just. 13.4.5; Yardley, Wheatley
& Heckel, 2011. p. 81.
579 Curt. 10.10.9; cf. Anson, AHB. 26. (2014). p. 51; Bosworth, 2002. p. 55. contra
the account found in Aelian (VH. 12.64), which suggest a longer period of time for the deliberations to take place.
580 Anson (AHB. 26. (2014). p. 52), states that in addition to Craterus’ compliance
with his new position, he did not view Perdiccas’ assumption of the regency of Macedon as an act of usurpation on the part of the new regents (cf. Diod. 18.2.4; 18.3.1.).
together, it is important to note that Polyperchon was still acting as Craterus’ direct subordinate. Additionally, Craterus’ connection to the dead Alexander was still strong. He was the last regent of Macedon named by Alexander and Antipater was well aware of this. By his compliance, Craterus brought a sense of legitimacy and authority to Antipater’s continuation of command in Macedon. As Alexander’s last appointed regent, Craterus’ willingness to work with Antipater would aid him in maintaining pro-Antipatrid garrisons and oligarchies in Greece. Craterus’ close ties with the royals and other groups sympathetic to their cause would also help to mute any criticism from groups at Pella hostile to Antipater. For the time being, Antipater’s position as strategos in Macedon was safe.
Craterus’ appointment to Europe had given him cause to resume his march west. With the outbreak of the Lamian War, that cause was exacerbated. News of Alexander’s demise had reached Europe, and the Greek cities found the opportune moment to launch their revolt against Macedonian hegemony. Facing a Greek revolt with the depleted military reserve resulting from Alexander’s campaigns was the very situation Antipater had feared. The only Macedonian troops in the region apart from the depleted supply in Macedon itself,581 were to
be found in the form of the garrisons placed by Alexander and Antipater in Greece. Relocating the garrisons from relatively passive regions to more volatile areas was not an appealing option, as this risked the possibility of further unrest spreading throughout Greece. Antipater needed to react quickly, and knew external help would be required if Macedonian control of Greece was to continue. As soon as he learnt of Alexander’s death, he dispatched messengers to at least two generals in Asia Minor who had the potential to lend swift support, those being Craterus, and Leonnatus, who received the satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia.582
581 Adams, Anc. Soc. 10. (1984). p. 84.
582 Diod. 18.12.1; Heckel, 2006. p. 36. Diodorus’ narrative (18.12.1) makes an
error with who occupied Hellespontine Phrygia, stating that it was Philotas, not Leonnatus (cf. Diod. 18.16.4; Heckel, 2006. p. 36; Landucci Gattinoni, 2008. p.
The account by Diodorus suggests that news of the division of the satrapies following the Settlement of Babylon and Alexander’s death arrived in Macedon at the same time.583 This would not have been the case and is more likely the
result of a compression of events in the historian’s narrative. As with Craterus, Antipater would have learnt of unfolding events in Babylon via a series of correspondence from the east, rather than in the form of a single messenger. News of Alexander’s death would force him to turn his attentions south to the Greek cities, as the potential of unrest was likely. As for Antipater’s regency and his replacement by Craterus, the prospect of departing from Macedon before his replacement arrived with 10,000 soldiers further depleting much needed troops, was gone.
Once Antipater’s request for aid reached Cilicia, Craterus began preparations to depart for Macedon.584 Anson has identified that Craterus could not, and would
not, have refused Antipater. Additionally, it has been noted that significant emphasis has been placed on the reasons for the slow progression made by Craterus in the journey west during this period.585 When it is placed in