Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:51:47.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ptolemy Soter's annexation of Syria 320 b.c.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Pat Wheatley
Pat Wheatley
Affiliation:
The University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The incursions of Ptolemy Soter into Coelê-Syria and Phoenicia after the death of Perdiccas have received scant attention from scholars in recent years, and the little they have received has failed to draw some vital conclusions. The sources are compressed, but unanimous, that very soon after the settlement of Triparadeisus, Ptolemy subverted and overran the region, fortified and garrisoned the cities, and returned to Egypt. He seems to have held this satrapy until it became a major arena in the third Diadoch war, c. 315–311 B.C.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , December 1995 , pp. 433 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The main recent contributions are: Seibert, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios' 1 (Munich, 1969), pp. 129–30Google Scholar; Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellenistique i (Nancy, 1966), pp. 41–2Google Scholar; Billows, R. A., Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990), pp. 4, 72, 75Google Scholar; Heckel, W., The Marshals of Alexander's Empire (London and New York, 1992), pp. 174, 182, 212Google Scholar. See also, Stähelin, , RE xii (1925), 755, no. 6Google Scholar; Bux, , RE xii (1925), 756, no. 7, s.v. LaomedonGoogle Scholar; Volkmann, , RE xxiii (1959), 1611ff., no. 18Google Scholar, s.v. Ptolemaios I Soter.

2 Diodorus 18.43, 49.3, 73.2; Appian, , Syr. 52Google Scholar; Marble, Parian, FGrH 239 F B12Google Scholar; Pausanias 1.6.4. See also, Josephus, , Antiquities, 12.i.3–5Google Scholar; it is not clear whether the latter entry refers to Ptolemy's movements in 320 or after Gaza in 312, see, Against Apion I 184ff., 209ff., and Agatharchides of Cnidus, , FGrH 86 F20Google Scholar.

3 Diod. 19.58.1–59.3; Appian, , Syr. 53Google Scholar; Paus. 1.6.5; Plut, . Demetr. 5.1–2Google Scholar.

4 Diod. 18.41–2 and 39.7 respectively.

5 Discussion of Diodorus' historical and chronographic method can be found in Homblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford, 1981), particularly p. 107ff.Google Scholar; Anson, E. M., ‘Diodorus and the Date of Triparadeisus’, AJP 107 (1986), 208–17, pp. 209–11Google Scholar; and Smith, L. C., ‘The Chronology of Books XVIII–XX of Diodorus Siculus’, AJP 82 (1961), 283–90Google Scholar.

6 Diod. 18.39.1. The nomenclature for the regions of Syria, Palestine and Phoenicia is discussed by Bosworth, A. B., ‘The Government of Syria under Alexander the Great’, CQ 24 (1974), 46–64, pp. 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 The dating of Triparadeisus to autumn is unavoidable; for discussion, see Bosworth, A. B., ‘History and Artifice in Plutarch's Eumenes’, in Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, Stadter, P. A. (ed.), (London, 1992), 56–89, p. 76, (hereafter, Bosworth 1992a)Google Scholar; it is the year which is obscure.

8 Berve, ii, no. 559.

9 For an analysis of the source tradition for Antipater's death, see Bosworth 1992a, p. 75, n. 102.

10 Bosworth, , ‘Philip III Arridaeus and the Chronology of the Successors’ Chiron 22 (1992), 55–81, p. 74Google Scholar, (hereafter, Bosworth 1992b), provides decisive comment on the veracity of the Parian marble, contra Errington, R. M., ‘Diodorus Siculus and the Chronology of the Early Diadochoi, 320–311 B.C.’, Hermes 105 (1977), 478–504, pp. 503–4Google Scholar.

11 Σρων δ πρτος γγνεται σατρπης Λαομδων Mιτυληναῖος ἔκ τε Περδκκου κα ξ Ἀντιπτρου το μετ τν Περδκκαν προστατσαντος τν βασιλων.

12 The sources imply some kind of friendship between Ptolemy and Laomedon; they were among Alexander's childhood friends, and were both exiled by Philip II after the Pixodorus affair, Plut, . Alex. 10.4Google Scholar; Arr. Anabasis 3.6.5. Although friends of Alexander's were not necessarily friends with each other, an association between Laomedon and Ptolemy is evident in that the former was likely to have been part of Ptolemy's conspiracy to hijack Alexander's funeral carriage, see Heckel, pp. 211–12.

13 Seibert, p. 129; Volkmann, , RE xxiii, 1612Google Scholar.

14 Will, p. 41, discusses Ptolemy's ambitions, linking them to traditional Pharaonic strategy and expansionism, see also, Seibert, p. 129; Volkmann, , RE xxiii 1612Google Scholar. That Ptolemy was diplomatically active in Cyprus at this time is evident from Arrian, Succ. F24.6, (Vatican palimpsest).

15 πρς Ἀλκταν ἔς Καραν.

16 A convenient bibliography on the subject can be found in Bosworth 1992b, p. 55, n. 1.

17 Bosworth 1992a & b; and ‘Perdiccas and the Kings’, CQ 43 (1993), 420–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘A New Macedonian Prince’, CQ 44 (1994), 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 In particular, the Goteborg palimpsest fragment of Arrian's Successors, published by Noret, J., ‘Un fragment du dixieme livre de la Succession d' Alexandre par Arrien’, L' Antiquité Classique 52 (1983), 235–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some commentary and discussion can be found in Schröder, S., ‘Zum Göteborger Arrian-Palimpsest’, ZPE 71 (1988), 75–90Google Scholar.

19 Diod. 18.37.3–4; Arr. Succ. F1.39.

20 Diod. 18.46.1–3.

21 Arrian, , Succ. F24.3–5 (Vatican palimpsest)Google Scholar; Babylonian chronicle, obverse 6. It is unclear whether the latter entry refers to Docimus or Seleucus. For discussion, see Grainger, J., Seleukos Nikator, Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, (London, 1990), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Bosworth 1992b, pp. 77–8.

22 Diod. 18.39.2–4; Arr, . Succ. Fl.31–3, 39Google Scholar; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.6.4. The sources are unanimous in presenting this picture of the royal army.

23 Arr. Succ. F1.39.

24 Diodorus states this three times: 18.37.2, 3, and 41.7.

25 Antipater's return: Diod. 18.39.7; Arr. Succ. F1.44. Note that there is probably a lacuna at this point in Diodorus, as is evident from events described by Arr. Succ. F1.40–45; Plut, . Eum. 9–10Google Scholar; Justin 14.1. Defeat of Eumenes: Diod. 18.40–41; Plut, . Eum. 9–10Google Scholar; Just. 14.2; Nepos, Eum. 5.2–3Google Scholar.

26 Arr. Göteborg palimp. line 19.

27 Plut, . Eum. 8.4Google Scholar: ξλασεν εἰς τνἄνω Φρυγαν κα διεϰεμαζεν ν Κελαιναῖς· που τν μν περ τν Ἀλκταν κα Πολμωνα κα Δκιμον ὑπρ γεμονας διαφιλοτιμουμνων …

28 This is noted by Heckel, p. 182, n. 74.

29 Arr, . Succ. F1.41–2Google Scholar; Plut, . Eum. 8.3–5Google Scholar.

30 Diod. 18.44–7.

31 Diod. 19.16.

32 Appian, , Mithr. 9Google Scholar, links Antigonus with Laomedon, but this would seem to be an error, see Heckel, p. 212. The fact that Laomedon is not mentioned at Diodorus 19.16 in connection with Attalus, Polemon and Docimus, whereas two otherwise unknown commanders, Antipater and Philotas, are, may indicate that he was dead by this time.

33 Arr. Succ. F1.43.

34 Arr. Succ. F1.44–5. A very reasonable date can be hypothesized for Antipater's arrival in Europe by combining Diod. 18.40.1–2, Arr. Göteborg palimp. fr. line 19, and the Bab. chron. obv. 7–8. The former two offer the season; the latter suggests a date late in Philip's fifth regnal year (obverse 7: April 320–March 319, see Bosworth 1992b, pp. 59–60, and Grainger 1990, p. 30). In effect, this means Antipater left Asia after the mid-winter events described in the Göteborg palimpsest and Plut, . Eum. 8.4–5Google Scholar, but before April 319.

35 Bosworth 1992a, pp. 76–7.

36 Will, pp. 41–2, suggests in Egypt, but this is conjectural. It would seem that Laomedon would have more chance of suborning a guard in his own satrapy than in Ptolemy's.

37 Arr. Succ. F1.39, 42; Appian, , Syr. 52Google Scholar. Quite possibly, Asander's thrust against Attalus and Alcetas began in Pisidia, and spilled over into adjacent Caria when Asander withdrew. Alternatively, Asander may have been caught between the forces of Attalus coming up from the Rhodian peraea, and Alcetas advancing from Pisidia. Arrian states that the campaign was not immediately resolved: κα γχωμλου τς μχης γεγνημνης ττται Ἄσανδρος. (F1.42).

38 For discussion, see Bosworth 1992a, pp. 76–7.

39 Diod. 18.44.1. Alcetas' final campaign against Antigonus is the first event Diodorus records in the archonship of Apollodorus. In Diodorus' context, Eumenes is already shut up in Nora (Diod. 18.41.1; Plut, . Eum. 10Google Scholar; Just. 14.2.1–1; Strabo, 12.2.6; Nepos, , Eum. 5.3Google Scholar), and Ptolemy is well in control of Coelê-Syria and Phoenicia.

40 Diod. 18.46.7. For the link to Antipater's death, see 18.47.4.

41 Newell, E. T., The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake (Oxford, 1916)Google Scholar. Newell's evaluation of this coinage is still the received opinion amongst numismatists, see e.g. Head, Barclay V., Historia Numorum (Oxford, 1911), pp. 796–7Google Scholar; Merker, I. L., ‘Notes on Abdalonymos and the Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake’, ANSMN 11 (1964), 13–20, with a convenient summary of Newell on p. 13Google Scholar; and Price, M. J., The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus i (Zurich and London, 1991), pp. 435–44Google Scholar and plates. See also, Volkmann, H., RE xxiii (1959) 1612, no. 18Google Scholar.

42 E.g. Newell, pp. 32–3, 61; Merker, pp. 19–20.

43 Newell, pp. 22–3, 55; Mørkholm, O., Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea 336–186 B.C. (Cambridge, 1991), p. 47Google Scholar. Seibert, p. 13, n. 4, commits a grave error in dismissing the numismatic evidence on the grounds that the coins marked Nu (N) are dated from the thirteenth year of Alexander's reign in Macedon, i.e. 324/23. Clearly, local mints dated their issues from Alexander's conquest of Phoenicia, i.e. 333/2, by which parameters N = 321/20. Seibert's note is totally unsatisfactory: he uses a fallacious dating method to support the Parian marble's placement of Ptolemy's conquest in 319/18. Assigning a base-date of 336 to the Sidonian coins completely unhinges his postulation. Persian dominated cites would certainly not be coining in Alexander's name prior to Issus, and Newell's dating of these coins must be considered ineluctable. See also Head, p. 944, index rerum, s.v. Eras for the dating parameters of Alexander in Phoenicia.

44 Bickerman, E., Chronology of the Ancient World (London, 1968), p. 74Google Scholar, is cautionary, repudiating the numismatic practice of using coins as chronographic pinpoints. However, his comments on the coinage of Sidon are themselves confused, (he attributes the N coins to 317/16!), and Seibert may well be correct in assuming that Bickerman took the year 321/20 for Ptolemy's annexation of Syria from the inexact chronology of Diodorus. Nevertheless, as his paper demonstrates, when combined with Arrian and Appian, and taking into account the lacuna, Diodorus' chronology is in this case relatively accurate.

45 Newell, pp. 14–17, Series IV: staters and tetradrachms issued between mid 323 and early 320 in the name of Alexander, dated years 10(K), 12 (M), 13 (N). The absence of any issues for the year 323/2 (Λ??) is, I feel, also significant and can be explained in historical context. Series V: staters tetradrachms and a unique pentobol issued from late 320 to 317 in the name of Philip Arrhidaeus, dated years 13(N), 14 (Ξ), 15 (O), 16 (Γ). Issues after 317 revert to the name of Alexander, as Philip was murdered in October 317, (Diod. 19.11.5; Justin 14.5.10).

46 Newell, pp. 31–2.

47 Contra Bickerman, , Chron. of the A. World, p. 74Google Scholar, who asserts that ‘Ptolemy did not issue coins in the name of Alexander the Great’. The hypothesis of this paper would also help to explain why Laomedon fled to Alcetas, and not Antipater, from whom he derived his authority. If Ptolemy was usurping the royal prerogatives in such a high-handed manner, Laomedon may have feared that he had the tacit support of the kings and their guardians, and calculated that his own best option was to throw his lot in with the Perdiccans. This may also support the indication in the Göteborg palimpsest that the war was by no means going Antipater's way, and that the Perdiccan cause was looking more promising than that of the loyalists during 320. That Ptolemy's tenure in Coelê-Syria was considered illegitimate is evident from Diod. 18.73.2.

48 Other interpretations of this evidence are, of course, possible, e.g. a ‘low’ chronology scenario could be that the coinage may have changed when Philip Arrhidaeus himself passed through Sidon with Perdiccas en route to or from Egypt. However, in tandem with the literary evidence, these numismatic documents seem to provide a strong case for the ‘high’ chronology.

49 I am extremely grateful to Professor A. B. Bosworth, Dr N. G. Ashton, and Associate-Professor J. R. Melville-Jones for their encouragement and useful comments; also Savithri Mizen for her help with German translations.