This volume comprises 18 papers presented at a conference held at the University of La Coruña in 2010. The introduction by E. Anson explains the background of the conference and provides an overview of the assembled chapters. The rest of the book is conveniently organised around four major themes: primary sources, the power struggle among the Diadochi, the role of Iranians, and images and slogans in Diadochic propaganda.
T. Boiy provides an overview of different categories of cuneiform documents that especially help to establish a more reliable chronology. Of particular interest are the different perspectives on kingship reflected, as the king list from Babylon employs a legalistic approach and presents Alexander IV as king of Babylon, while a parallel document from Uruk lists Antigonus as ruler, although he formally served only as strategos at this time. P. Wheatley discusses the Heidelberg Epitome. He agrees with W. Bauer's conclusion that the four extant passages were composed by a Byzantine epitomator drawing on a vast variety of ancient sources, but does identify Hieronymus of Cardia as the main tradition behind the epitome. F. Landucci Gattinoni focuses on Diodorus' presentation of Antigonus and Seleucus. The latter assumes a more central role from the beginning of the Third Diadoch War on, and Landucci Gattinoni identifies Duris of Samos as the source for this account, perhaps drawing on Demodamas of Miletus, a loyal supporter of the first Seleucids. Duris is also the topic of F. Pownall's contribution, in which she convincingly shows that he was openly hostile to the Antigonids and their flatterers, but extended his criticism also to the other Diadochi among whom only Eumenes received praise instead (as did Phocion). As this criticism mostly focused on the low morals and excessive lifestyles of the Diadochi, Duris reflects the general tone of the contemporary historiographical tradition. T. Howe's article shows that the concept of Alexander's living divinity gained particular strength under the Diadochi and was a crucial factor for each of them in legitimising their own rule. He thus shines a light on the often overlooked fact that many of the key aspects of the Alexander legend were shaped immediately after his death because of the interests and ideological needs of his successors. B. Bosworth proves again the complexity of many Alexander traditions. In a case study of the story of Alexander and the Indian Brahmans as presented by Strabo, Bosworth shows that Strabo worked carefully and from various sources but was nevertheless thoroughly influenced by the politics of his own days, Augustan imperial concepts and the contemporary Indian embassies to Rome. In the concluding article of this section, A. Meeus stresses the importance of methodological rigour and scrutiny of any modern analysis of the diverse yet highly biased sources. Using the example of Diodorus, he especially criticises arguments from silence, the principle of testis unus testis nullus and emendations based on historical plausibility.
The second section on the power struggles between the Diadochi begins with E. Anson's discussion of the career of Eumenes and the battle of Gabene. Anson comes to the conclusion that Eumenes decided to attack Antigonus although he was aware that his fellow-commanders were plotting against him. The ensuing stalemate and the sack of his camp by Antigonus finally sealed his fate. The famous Argyraspids are the subject of E. Baynham's contribution. Based on a careful analysis of all available sources and comparisons with other ancient armies, she argues that the reports on the advanced age of the elite unit and their large number (3,000 according to Diodorus) might be exaggerated, but that the information in general should be trusted. Based on epigraphical evidence, P. Paschides refutes Plutarch's statement that the Athenians proclaimed Demetrius and Antigonus basileis already in 307, but only recognised the new title a year later together with the rest of the Greek world. Plutarch's misrepresentation probably stems from Athenian sources from after 304 b.c. when the pro-Demetrius faction wanted to propagandise their polis' early support for the Antigonids. The relation between polis and king is also the subject of S. Wallace's interesting article on Adeimantus of Lampsacus. Adeimantus owed his position as proedros of the Hellenic League and as strategos of Athens as well as the numerous offices and honours in other cities to his close relations to Demetrius Poliorcetes. Wallace shows that individuals such as Adeimantus played a crucial part in integrating the Greek poleis into the political frameworks of the Hellenistic world.
The third section deals with the influence of Persians and Persian traditions on the political and cultural developments of the Diadochic period. M. Olbrycht focuses on prominent Persians and those satraps and commanders in the East who had been appointed by Alexander. While the eastern satrapies remained strategically important, separatist movements arose when the Seleucids had to focus their attention on the west of their empire. L. Ballesteros Pastor reaches similar conclusions in his case study of the resistance against Diadochic rule in Cappadocia and Pontus. He shows that Persian traditions and regional identity remained strong in these parts of Asia Minor and finally had to be accepted by the Diadochi as well. S. Müller discusses the role of the Persian wives of the Diadochi. For Ptolemy I, a Persian wife offered no political advantage, and next to nothing is known about the life of his Persian bride Artacama. Apama on the other hand bore much greater importance for Seleucus in his attempt to gain the support of his Eastern subjects. However, Müller shows that Apama was also promoted as queen in the western parts of Seleucus' realm and was thus crucial for the evolution of the public presentation of Hellenistic queens in general. Lysimachus also enjoyed political gains from his marriage with Amastris, but the public presentation of their relationship was limited to Asia Minor.
The articles in the fourth section focus on the slogans and images employed in Diadochic propaganda. G. Squillace offers a new interpretation of the widespread slogan of freedom for the Greeks. In a case study on Ptolemy's offerings to Athena Lindia, he shows that the ruler of Egypt not only presented himself as the champion of Greek freedom but also copied Alexander's offerings after the battle of Issus. The slogan of Greek freedom thus appealed to current politics as well as to the legacy of Alexander. The slogan of freedom is also the focus of E. Poddighe's article on Philip III Arrhidaeus and the Greeks in 319 b.c. She interprets Philip's famous diagramma to free the Greeks in the context of the power struggle between Polyperchon and Cassander. As the ordinance rendered most of Antipater's dispositions for Greece invalid, Polyperchon was presented not only as the legitimate regent but also as the true defender of the legacy of Philip II and Alexander, and this was meant to undermine Cassander's self-promotion as champion of Macedonian traditions. D. Ogden discusses the cult of Agathos Daimon and the foundation myth of Alexandria. He shows that the public cult was probably established by Ptolemy I who successfully connected it with Alexander. Ogden also links these traditions with the private cult of the Agathoi Daimones and the legend of the argolaoi-snakes that Alexander supposedly brought to Egypt to fight off other venomous snakes. The subject of V. Alonso Troncoso's chapter is elephants as symbols of power and kingship. He shows that Ptolemy's famous coins featuring Alexander with the elephant scalp also referred to Ptolemy's own victory over Perdiccas and his war elephants. In the Seleucid context, the image of Alexander in elephant-skin celebrated the (alleged) victories in the Far East. After the battle of Ipsus, however, elephants became a general royal symbol representing power and military prowess in all parts of the Seleucid Empire.
The papers address many of the key problems of the Diadochic period, and most of them provide innovative readings and fresh perspectives on pivotal questions. However, as all chapters are rather short, they tend to focus on individual aspects without putting them into the broader historical context. Cross-references to other chapters would have helped to create a more cohesive picture. This criticism notwithstanding, the volume offers many thought-provoking interpretations for anyone interested in the legacy of Alexander and the formative years of the Hellenistic period.
