From the chiselled physiques of gods to the stoic forms of athletes, Ancient Greek sculpture epitomises the male body ideal. Yet, one detail often draws attention, often provoking a raised eyebrow: the diminutive size of their sculpted genitalia. Is this an artistic oversight? A curious quirk? Or does it reveal a deeper truth about the essence of masculinity in Ancient Greece?

Sign up to watch

Throughout Ancient Greece’s vast timeline, from its mysterious Dark Ages through its Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods, each era boasted distinct cultural norms, artistic styles, and varying representations of the human form.

Kate delves into original sources to understand what the Ancient Greeks truly valued when it came to male anatomy. Did size matter in Ancient Greece? She explores the impact of Dionysiac rituals and the works of Greek playwright Aristophanes, uncovering a prevailing view that may challenge modern perceptions. 

The documentary also addresses the question of missing members on many ancient statues. Kate goes behind the scenes at the British Museum to explore the ‘Museum Secretum’, a hidden part of the museum full of erotic antiquities, to explore the historical reasoning behind the frequent absence of genitalia on many ancient sculptures. 

With her trusty tape measure in hand, Kate also heads to the Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology. There, she meets its Director, Classicist Professor Caroline Vout, to examine a renowned sculpture: Doryphoros – ‘The Spear Carrier’. Created by Polykleitos, an artist famous for his treatise on perfect human proportion, Doryphoros’s body, while beautifully rendered, still deviates from real-world male anatomy – particularly in the genital area.

Kate Lister talks to Director of the Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology, Classicist Professor Caroline Vout.

Image Credit: History Hit

So, why this artistic choice? In the documentary, Kate explores several compelling theories, each shedding light on different facets of Ancient Greek society and philosophy.

Was it about self-control, restraint, and intellectualism, a reflection of the Greek ideal of the civilised man who masterfully controlled his natural urges? Did it tie into their emphasis on rational thought and freedom to pursue wisdom, as suggested by figures like Plato? Or was it simply about aesthetics, creating a “neat, tidy” appearance that avoided distraction? Kate also delves into more provocative ideas around youth as well as ancient theories about the male body and reproduction.

Kate Lister conducting her research (both at the Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology and the British Museum)

Image Credit: History Hit

Dicking About is not just about what’s on display; it’s about what these sculptures and artistic choices reveal about a civilisation that profoundly shaped Western thought. By examining these surprising details, we uncover profound insights into Ancient Greek ideals of masculinity, beauty, self-control, and their stark contrast with the “barbarians” they defined themselves against.

Join Kate Lister as she uncovers the fascinating, and often surprising, reasons behind one of the most curious features of classical art.

Sign up to watch

Ancient Greek philosophers used paradoxes for all sorts of reasons, from sharpening their dialectical skills and showing philosophical opponents were talking nonsense to serious philosophical inquiry – but also for fun.

Some paradoxes were lethal. Philetas of Cos’s epitaph tells us he died tormented by the “liar paradox”. And according to one biographer, Diodorus Cronus killed himself in 284 BC after failing to solve a paradox put to him by fellow philosopher Stilpo of Megara.

These stories are fanciful, but they point to something maddeningly true about paradoxes: there cannot be a single, obvious solution. Sometimes there is no good solution. Sometimes there are too many good solutions. Paradoxes point to conceptual glitches or bugs. How to fix these bugs, or whether they can be fixed, is rarely obvious.

The three paradoxes that follow are some of the best-known examples from Ancient Greece.

1. The liar paradox

“This sentence is false.” Philosophers call that the “liar sentence”. Is it true? If you say “yes, the liar sentence is true”, then things are as it says – yet the liar sentence says it is false.

On the other hand, suppose you say “no, the liar sentence is false”. This means things are not as the liar sentence says. But this is exactly what it says, so in this sense the liar sentence is true.

In short, there are good reasons to say both that the sentence is true and that it is false. Yet no sentence can be both true and false.

This paradox was invented by the philosopher Eubulides of Miletus, who was famous for his paradoxes, in the 4th century BC. His own formulation has been lost, and what I give here is my reconstruction.

The liar paradox alienates us from everyday notions like truth, falsehood and self-referential language. But it also calls into question the idea, presupposed by question-and-answer dialectic (dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject), that every question can be answered “yes” or “no”. It seems there are good reasons to answer both “yes” and “no” to some questions.

Some philosophers have concluded this means that both “yes” and “no” are good answers to the question “is the liar sentence true?”. They call this a “glut” of good answers. To apply the liar paradox to your life, when you ask or are asked questions, ask yourself: is there more than one right answer?

2. The horns paradox

Have you lost your horns? If you answer “yes”, you must have had horns that you have now lost. If you say “no”, then you have horns that you have not lost. Either way you answer, you suggest you had horns – but that is clearly false.

Questions are a key part of philosophy. But they’re also key to how we get information from other people. The liar paradox highlights that some questions have a more than one good answer. The horns paradox highlights another problem – questions have presuppositions.

If I ask “have you stopped eating meat?”, then I presuppose you no longer eat meat, but that you used to. These questions look like they should have a “yes” or “no” answer, but in fact there is a gap because we could deny the presupposition.

When you ask questions, or are asked questions, first ask yourself: what is being presupposed?

A billy goat with long horns, wood engraving.

Image Credit: Wellcome Collection / Public Domain

3. The sorites paradox

Here are 10,000 grains of sand. Do I have a heap? Yes, of course. I remove a grain, so now I have 9,999 grains. Do I have a heap? Yes. I remove another grain so I have 9,998. Do I have a heap? Yes.

Losing a single grain does not affect whether I have a heap. But reiterating this 9,997 more times, I have one grain. That should be a heap, but of course it is not. You could argue both that one grain is a heap, and that it is not. But nothing can be both a heap and not a heap.

Another of Eubulides’ greatest hits, the sorites (the “heaper”), uses a heap as an example. But it also heaps question upon question.

This paradox challenges us because some concepts have fuzzy edges. When we plug these fuzzy concepts into a question-and-answer dialectic, there are clear yes-or-no answers at the start and end of the sequence. Ten thousand grains is clearly a heap and one grain clearly is not. But there are no clear yes or no answers for some region in the middle.

The liar paradox suggests there might be gluts of good answers to yes or no questions; the horns that there might be gaps, where neither “yes” nor “no” is the correct answer. But the sorites shows that there may be gaps that come and go, with fuzzy-edged concepts. But how many of our concepts have fuzzy edges? And do fuzzy concepts track a fuzzy world?

Paradoxes highlight glitches in commonplace, everyday activities: asserting truths, asking questions, and describing objects. Thinking carefully about this is fun, certainly. But paradoxes should also make us sensitive to whether every apparently good question has exactly one good answer: some questions have more, some have none.

Matthew Duncombe is Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Nottingham.

In our documentary, Medusa with Natalie Haynes, we ventured to the beautiful Greek island of Corfu with classicist Natalie Haynes to discover the roots of the extraordinary myth of Medusa and investigate sites closely connected – including Corfu’s spectacular Gorgon pediment, a gigantic early image of Medusa that once protected a magnificent Archaic era temple to Artemis.

The Gorgons have captured the imagination of storytellers, artists, and scholars for centuries. To understand their origin and significance, one must delve into the depths of Greek mythology and the ancient poem Theogony by the ancient Greek poet Hesiod.

Hesiod’s Theogony and the birth of the Gorgons

Gorgons were a popular image in Greek mythology, appearing in the earliest of written records of ancient Greek religious beliefs, including the two hugely influential epic poems of ancient Greece – Homer’s The Illiad and The Odyssey. Here they were depicted as a terrifying head on the shield of Greek warrior, Agamemnon, or a monster of the underworld.

However, it was Hesiod’s Theogony that serves as a foundational text in Greek mythology, providing insights into the genealogy and origins of divine beings, and it was here that the origins of the Gorgons and their significance was explained.

According to Hesiod, the Gorgons were born from the union of the sea deities Phorcys and Ceto. Phorcys, a primordial sea god, and Ceto, a sea monster, were parents to a myriad of monstrous offspring, including the three Gorgon sisters: Stheno (the mighty), Euryale (the far-springer, or of the wide sea), and Medusa (the queen).

The Gorgon sisters were said to occupy a liminal space; their parents are sea creatures, they have wings, but dwelt on land – said to be on the farthest side of the western ocean, which some believe refers to Libya.

Medusa, the mortal Gorgon

Among the Gorgons, Medusa occupies a central role in Greek mythology. 

After two gods had vied to be the protector of Athens – with the sea god Poseidon offering the sea, and Athena, goddess of wisdom, warfare, and handicraft, offering olive trees – Athens picked Athena.

Originally a priestess in the temple of Athena, Medusa’s life took a tragic turn when she caught the eye of Poseidon, who raped her within the sacred walls of Athena’s temple, leading to the goddess’s wrath. As a punishment for violating her sacred space, Athena punished Medusa, turning Medusa’s hair into snakes and giving her a gaze that could turn mortals to stone.

The iconography of Medusa is striking – a creature with a monstrous countenance, wings, and a head adorned with live serpents. This transformation not only punished Medusa but also served as a potent symbol of divine retribution in Greek mythology.

‘Perseus with the Head of Medusa’ by Antonio Canova(1757 – 1822) – in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ad Meskens; sculpture Antonio Canova / CC BY-SA 3.0

Perseus and the quest for Medusa’s head

The narrative takes a turn with the introduction of Perseus. In a classic hero’s quest, Perseus, son of Zeus, is tasked with the perilous mission of beheading Medusa – the only mortal Gorgon. Equipped with gifts from the gods – a reflective shield from Athena, winged sandals from Hermes, and a sword from Hephaestus – Perseus embarks on this daunting mission.

Guided by divine assistance, Perseus successfully decapitates Medusa without directly facing her gaze. The severed head, however, retained its petrifying power, serving as a potent weapon in subsequent mythological tales.

Symbolism and interpretations

The Gorgons, particularly Medusa, hold rich symbolic meanings in Greek mythology. One interpretation sees Medusa as a representation of divine wrath and the consequences of violating sacred spaces. The transformation from a beautiful priestess to a monstrous Gorgon with snakes in her hair becomes a cautionary tale of the wrath of the gods.

Moreover, Medusa’s gaze turning individuals to stone can be seen as a metaphor for the inevitability of death. The petrification serves as a powerful reminder of mortality, emphasising the boundary between the mortal and divine realms.

Artistic representations

The myth of Medusa and the Gorgons has inspired countless artistic interpretations throughout history. From ancient Greek pottery to Renaissance paintings, artists have sought to capture the allure and terror associated with these mythical beings. Notable works include Caravaggio’s Medusa, where the artist depicts the severed head with haunting realism, capturing the moment of transformation frozen in time.

On the Greek island of Corfu, a large statue of Medusa dating from 580 BC was found in the remains of the Temple of Artemis (an Archaic era and the oldest-known Greek stone temple). The statue would have been part of the pediment of the temple, and is on display at the Archaeological Museum of Corfu. It depicts this Gorgon as having wings, and as a strong woman with a wide mouth and protruding tongue (often depicting a cacophonous loud noise). It also shows Medusa’s two children: Pegasus and a golden giant.

An archaic Gorgon (around 580 BC), as depicted on a pediment from the temple of Artemis in Corfu, on display at the Archaeological Museum of Corfu

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Archaeological Museum of Corfu / CC BY-SA 4.0

The statue’s role would have been to look down at new arrivals, protecting and impressing at the temple’s entrance. Medusa was thought to scare or protect depending on who you are. To help her achieve this, fantastical wild beasts including a ‘leo-panther’ (lion/panther) are depicted by her.

Because of their legendary and powerful gaze that could turn one to stone, in ancient Greece, images of the Gorgons (or an individual Gorgoneion – a stone head, engraving, or drawing of a Gorgon face, often with snakes protruding wildly and the tongue sticking out between her fangs) were frequently used as a talisman, and placed on doors, walls, floors, coins, shields, breastplates, tombstones, and on the ends of pipes or roofs, in the hopes of warding off evil.

In later centuries, Gorgon imagery developed from depicting a monstrous woman with a wide mouth and tongue out, to a more beautiful and sedate-looking woman, but with a couple of snakes in the hair.

Gorgons in popular culture

The legacy of the Gorgons extends beyond ancient mythology into modern popular culture. The image of Medusa, with her serpent hair and petrifying gaze, has become a recognisable symbol in literature, art, and cinema. Whether in classical literature or contemporary fantasy novels, the Gorgons continue to captivate audiences with their otherworldly and fearsome nature, and remain a timeless exploration of human fascination with the divine, the monstrous, and the transformative power of myth.

Though he had modest origins, Eumenes had served as secretary to Alexander, and his father Philip II before him, and acquired authority and prestige through his control of the conquerors’ intelligence and correspondence. His aristocratic opponents sought Eumenes’ death almost from the off, but Eumenes prevailed. Yet with the death in 319 BC of Antipater, the elderly steady hand entrusted by Alexander to rule in Europe, the general Antigonus saw an opportunity to take control of the empire himself. It set him on a direct path to confrontation with Eumenes.

Besieged at Nora

In 319 BC Eumenes had been defeated by Antigonus at the Battle of Orkynia in Cappadocia, after which he had retreated and taken refuge in a virtually impregnable stronghold called Nora. Recognising Eumenes’ proven ability to command, Antigonus is supposed to have made an offer to Eumenes to instate him as one of his own officers. Eumenes may have sought better terms and in any case would have been well supplied to wait it out. Soon the death of Antipater would throw his opponents’ plans into disarray.

1810 depictions of ancient siege warfare.

Image Credit: New York Public Library / Public Domain

But Antigonus was not the only powerful Macedonian who desired Eumenes as an ally. Back in Macedonia, Antipater’s successor, Polyperchon was also eyeing his support. At that time, Polyperchon’s position was in jeopardy. Antipater’s son Cassander, furious at not being labelled his father’s successor, had started gathering an army to confront Polyperchon. He sailed over to Asia Minor, to petition Antigonus.

Antigonus agreed to Cassander’s offer of an alliance. Polyperchon was now desperate. Antigonus was then the most powerful commander in the empire, with an army of almost 70,000 men. Polyperchon looked to Eumenes.

Kings’ General

Polyperchon sent a messenger to Eumenes in Cappadocia with an irresistible offer. If he were to break with Antigonus, the new regent offered Eumenes the title of ‘King’s General’ in Asia. Polyperchon offered him access to the vast royal treasury at Cyinda and even more auspiciously, command of the Silver Shields, Alexander the Great’s veteran Macedonian infantry guarding the treasury.

Eumenes abruptly headed east to Cyinda. There, as promised, he gained access to the royal treasury and the formidable Silver Shields. Eumenes’ war with Antigonus was back on.

The war re-starts

Antigonus was furious. Thanks to Polyperchon’s offer, he now had a new great threat in the east. Abruptly, his plans to invade Macedonia were put on hold and gathering a large army, he headed east once more in pursuit of the Cardian. Yet by the time he reached Syria, Eumenes had already departed. He had headed further to the east, keen to enlist the aid of the eastern governors against Antigonus.

Near Susa, Eumenes met with many of these satraps, already united with their armies. Most notable among these men was the Macedonian Peucestas, a former bodyguard of Alexander, friend to Eumenes and the governor of Persia. There was also Eudamus, who had come from India with a large force of elephants.

The Battle of the Coprates River, 317 BC

Meanwhile, Antigonus received reinforcements at Babylon from two fellow Macedonian generals, Seleucus and Peithon, and went in hot pursuit of Eumenes. In the summer of 317 BC, their forces clashed on the eastern bank of the Coprates River, now known as the Dez River in Iran. While Antigonus’ forces were in the midst of crossing, Eumenes led 4,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry towards the river, and charged.

The forces of Antigonus that had reached the other side, some 6,000 men, were taken completely by surprise. Soon that part of Antigonus’ army routed. Eumenes had won a small but clear victory, taking over 4,000 of Antigonus’ men prisoner. Unable to cross, Antigonus was forced to head north, around the Zagros Mountains. Fresh from this victory and with Antigonus off his back, Eumenes now planned to turn around, returning with his large army towards the Mediterranean.

The Macedonian phalanx, from “Cassell’s Illustrated Universal History” (1893).

Image Credit: British Library / Public Domain

Yet his eastern allies, most notably Peucestas, refused to comply. They feared that if they headed west, Antigonus would ravage their provinces. The eastern provinces were some of the richest lands in the empire, after all. Relenting, Eumenes continued east to Peucestas’ provincial capital of Persepolis. Antigonus circumnavigated the Zagros Mountains and was again advancing on Eumenes. Eumenes marched his forces from Persepolis to meet those of his rival. On the plains of Paraetacene, their forces clashed once again.

The Battle of Paraetacene, 317 BC

At Paraetacene, Eumenes deployed his army at the bottom of the plain. His force numbered just over 40,000 men, including 35,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 114 elephants. On his left, Eumenes placed over 3,000 of his cavalry. Then in his centre, he then placed his mercenary infantry, 5,000 troops trained in the Macedonian manner and finally, in the most prestigious place of the infantry line, the Silver Shields.

On his right wing, Eumenes placed his heavy cavalry, including both himself and Peucestas. Finally, Eumenes spread his elephants along the length of his line, with light infantry in between. Facing Eumenes, Antigonus’ army lay on a slight elevation to one side of the plain. His army was slightly smaller than that of Eumenes: 28,000 infantry, 8,500 cavalry and sixty-five elephants. On the left wing, he deployed his light cavalry: most notably a thousand agile horse archers from Parthia and two thousand expert Tarentine cavalry. These were placed under the command of Peithon.

Next to them, Antigonus placed his mercenary infantry, followed by 8,000 mixed Asian troops trained in the Macedonian manner and finally his 8,000 Macedonians. On his right wing, Antigonus placed his finest cavalry, the Companions, under the command of his son Demetrius, with himself furthest to the right. For his elephants, Antigonus placed most of them in front of his infantry line, facing those of Eumenes, with light infantry interspersed between them. Deployed in such a manner, Antigonus advanced his army at an angle. He moved his stronger right wing forward, keeping his lighter left wing further back.

Peithon’s charge

Sensing an opportunity for personal glory, Peithon decided to take matters into his own hands. He ordered his light cavalry on Antigonus’ left to advance against those facing them. Equipped with swift mounts and deadly missiles, these horsemen then rained arrows and javelins down on the opposing elephants and cavalry. Eumenes responded by sending a portion of his light cavalry on his left flank over to his right, chasing away Peithon’s light horsemen from the battle.

Meanwhile the infantry phalanxes had collided, and a desperate struggle was underway. Finally, the great experience of Eumenes’ silver shields shone through. Their unit had fought in the campaigns of both Philip II and his son Alexander; their skill was unmatched, crushing Antigonus’ opposing infantry easily. Much of Antigonus’ army was now in retreat. But the one-eyed general himself refused to withdraw. Seeing an opening on Eumenes’ left, he charged with his elite cavalry into the side of this force, causing panic. Eumenes’ left wing collapsed.

The rest of his army however was still intact and came to fend off any further attacks from Antigonus’ remaining forces. The battle ended with both sides claiming victory, yet it was Eumenes who had come off better. He had lost just over 500 men in the encounter; Antigonus on the other hand, had lost almost 4,000.

The war continues

Eumenes marched further east, to the rich lands of Gabiene while Antigonus returned to Media. Antigonus knew that the odds were now stacked against him; his losses at both the Coprates river and now at Paraecatene meant that his army was now notably smaller than that of Eumenes. He therefore attempted to outwit his foe with a surprise attack. Rather than waiting to restart campaigning next summer, Antigonus marched his army in the winter of 316 BC, through a harsh wilderness, hoping to surprise Eumenes.

Unfortunately for Antigonus, the plan was foiled and Eumenes managed to organise his forces on a nearby plain, awaiting the next battle. And so it was that in the winter of 316 BC, the final great clash between these formidable generals was to take place. It would decide the Second War of the Diadochi.

Ascending the throne in 223 BC, Antiochus inherited a Seleucid empire that had fallen into a downward spiral. Bactria, Parthia and large swathes of Syria had been lost by his predecessors. Antiochus aimed to stop the rot and restore uncontested Seleucid supremacy in Asia.  It would be no easy task. To achieve this goal he would have to re-unite lands stretching from the borders of India in the East to Macedonia in the West under his rule. Yet Antiochus remained undeterred.

By 210 BC, Antiochus had had mixed success. Although he initially faced great challenges – both against the pretender Molon and then against Ptolemy IV at Raphia in 217 BC – the young Seleucid had quickly recovered, recapturing large amounts of Asia Minor.

Looking east

Antiochus turned his gaze away from the eastern Mediterranean and towards the east. Antiochus sought to reassert Seleucid supremacy as far as the borders of India. Antiochus gathered a great Seleucid army for this expedition. The ancient source Justin claims it was 100,000 men strong, though this is almost certainly an exaggeration.

Among its ranks was a formidable cavalry body of at least 6,000 men, as well as at least 15,000 heavy infantrymen. They were the nucleus of Antiochus’ army, trained to form the Macedonian phalanx. Among these footmen was Antiochus’ crack unit, the Silver Shields. They were a 10,000 strong division named after Alexander’s own famous infantrymen. 10,000 peltasts, 2,000 Cretan archers and many mercenaries also filled the ranks.

In early 210 BC, Antiochus set off east. Within a year of reaching Parthia’s lands in 209 BC, resistance there had crumbled. Hyrkania was re-captured, as were the cities of Tambrax and Syrinx in southern Parthia. The new Parthian king, Arsaces II, submitted to Antiochus. Parthia belonged to Antiochus. Bactria was next.

Euthydemus acts

The Bactrian monarch Euthydemus, however, gathered a grand army and marched west to confront the Seleucid King. The Bactrian army was undoubtedly powerful. Not only did his infantry nucleus likely consist of Greek colonists trained in the Macedonian manner, but it would have been supported by expert Bactrian light infantry – men skilled at fighting in rough terrain.

That was not all. Among his force Euthydemus had many exotic beasts: terrifying war elephants from India as well as a substantial number of Bactrian camels in his supply train. Alongside all this, Euthydemus had another force more precious than the rest: his 10,000 Bactrian cavalry. Ever since the days of the Persian Empire, Bactria had been famed for its horsemen.

Some undoubtedly fought as light cavalry equipped with bows and javelins. Yet Euthydemus’ most powerful cavalry were his Bactrian cataphracts – heavily armoured horsemen who’s sheer weight could crush almost any opponent. Elite units of Hellenic companion cavalry likely also served alongside. Altogether it was among the most powerful cavalry forces in the known world.

Defending the Arius

Upon hearing that Antiochus’ force was closing in on the Arius River, Euthydemus sent his 10,000 expert cavalry ahead. Their orders were simple: prevent Antiochus’ force from crossing long enough for Euthydemus and his main army to arrive. For Euthydemus, the Arius would be where he would make his stand.

Yet Antiochus would not play Euthydemus’ game. When he was three days march away from the river, reports reached him that Euthydemus’ cavalry were guarding the Arius’ far bank. Without delay, he marched his army towards the river. For three days the Seleucid army marched at a steady pace, slowly approaching the Arius and the enemy. Yet when his army was within a day’s march of the river, Antiochus initiated a brilliant plan.

Intelligence

Antiochus’ reports had revealed much about the Bactrian cavalry awaiting him and they had revealed a flaw in the defence. His scouts had discovered that the Bactrian cavalry were not constantly stationed on the Arius river. The Greek-Roman historian Polybius reports that “he was informed that the cavalry of the enemy kept guard by day on the bank of the river, but at night retired to a city more than twenty stades off.”

That night, as the Bactrian cavalry returned to their cosy night-quarters, Antiochus therefore made his move. Ordering the rest of his army to continue the march the next morning, the Seleucid king gathered his cavalry and light infantry – some 15,000 men – and commenced a rapid march towards the river. The move was almost-perfectly executed. As the sun emerged the next morning, Antiochus’ select force had not only reached the Arius, but most of his force had also crossed completely unopposed. The rest of Antiochus’ army was still some way behind, however, and the Bactrians would soon be upon them.

The Bactrians return

They came sooner than expected. As the last part of Antiochus’ force was still crossing, Seleucid hearts fell. Rushing towards them were 10,000 Bactrian cavalry, alarmed by scouts of Antiochus’ manoeuvre. They were determined to send their foe back across the river. What was more, they had a gleaming opportunity to either kill or capture the Seleucid king.

Seeing the Bactrians advancing, Antiochus could not refuse the fight. Though most of his force were still not formed for battle, he gathered his 2,000 strong bodyguard andsounded the charge. If his small, elite force could hold the Bactrians for long enough for the rest of his army to form up, then Antiochus knew victory would be within sight. The strategy had huge risks.

The Battle of the Arius, 208 BC

Antiochus’ guard and the Bactrians quickly clashed. The fighting was fierce and Antiochus’ bodyguard struggled desperately to defend their king. The Bactrians were eager to drive their foe into the river and regain control of the crossing. A breakthrough was made when Antiochus’ guard routed a Bactrian squadron. The Seleucids started to get the upper hand. Yet fresh Bactrian support then charged in to the Seleucid royal guard.

River Arius (Hari River) with the Minaret of Jam, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Afghanistan.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Very soon the Seleucid guard began to suffer terribly. Most of their horses were killed from under them and many, including Antiochus, were forced to fight on foot. But Antiochus continued to resist, inspiring his troops with his bravery:

…the king had a horse killed under him and lost some of his teeth by a blow on the mouth: and his whole bearing obtained him a reputation for bravery of the highest description.

Polybius 10.49

The heroics Antiochus showed at the Arius would prove one of his finest moments. Yet even with the king’s brave antics, Antiochus’ guard soon began to waver. As the Bactrian noose closed in around the Seleucid necks all looked lost for Antiochus.

Relief

Just as the situation was looking most severe the battle was turned on its head. While Antiochus and his guard desperately fended off their Bactrian foes, his remaining cavalry formed up. Their charge was devastating and shattered the Bactrian cavalry. In disarray those that remained retreated to re-join Euthydemus’ army.

Upon seeing his shattered horsemen re-join his army, Euthydemus was aghast: his foe had shattered his elite corps and had already crossed the Arius. He ordered his remaining forces to retreat while Antiochus advanced into Bactria in pursuit. Though Antiochus may have won this battle, the war was far from over.

‘Paradise of the Earth’

Euthydemus retreated to his capital at Bactra. The majority of his army was still intact, and he now planned to withstand Antiochus long enough for the Seleucid king to sue for terms. No place better suited this than Bactra. Described as ‘the Mother of Cities’ and ‘Paradise of the Earth’, Bactra was a powerful city. Its strategic placement both on the banks of the navigable Oxus and along the lucrative silk road meant that trade flourished in this metropolis.

Alongside Ai-Khanoum, it was one of the richest cities in Bactria. Militarily too, we can presume the city of Bactra was formidable. For two years Antiochus attempted to breach the city to no avail. It proved one of the longest sieges in the whole of the 3rd century BC, second only perhaps to the siege of Syracuse. Finally, as both sides grew weary, talks to find a peaceful solution were initiated.

Depiction of Alexander’s siege of Tyre in 332 BC.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Negotiations

Antiochus was happy to engage in talks. His glorious eastern campaign was taking much longer than he had expected and he was  desperate to complete it. He sent an envoy called Teleas to Euthydemus to negotiate terms. Arriving at Euthydemus’ court, Teleas put forward Antiochus’ demands. We do not know what they were, but it seems probable from Euthydemus’ response that Antiochus deemed Euthydemus a usurper and demanded Bactria return to its rightful place as part of the Seleucid Empire.

But Euthydemus claimed he was no usurper. After all, it was he who had overthrown the Diodotids, the family who had revolted from the Seleucids in the first place. During the talks, Euthydemus also raised another point, which arguably had greater strength than the first.

The nomad threat

Living on the far-edge of the known world also had its downsides. To the north of Bactra, and especially beyond the Jaxartes, lay the land of hordes and steppe: the home of the ‘Scythians’ or ‘Sacae.’ Just as Macedonia and Epirus were the shields of Hellenism from barbarism on the Greek mainland, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom had a similar job in eastern Asia.

Bactria had frequently faced incursions from nomadic tribes in the past. The Persians, Alexander, the Seleucids and now the Greco-Bactrians – they had all built forts on the southern bank of the Jaxartes river to fend off this threat. With Euthydemus holed up in Bactra, that threat was rising. Aware that these nomads, attracted by the turmoil, gathered on his northern border, Euthydemus pleaded to Teleas that:

if Antiochus did not retract this demand [Euthydemus giving up his kingship], neither of them would be secure. The great hordes of Nomads were close at hand and were a great danger to both. If they failed to stop them getting into the country, it would certainly be utterly barbarised.

Polybius 11. 34

Euthydemus’ argument was that if Antiochus removed him from power, then Bactria could fall, quickly followed by the all Hellenism in Asia. Whether this was simply meant as a statement of fact or a more sinister, underlying threat by Euthydemus, it proved effective.

A compromise is reached

The two kings reached an agreement. Euthydemus would remain as king of Bactria, but with certain conditions: not only did Antiochus force him to hand over his mighty elephant division, but it is also likely Euthydemus paid some sort of homage to the Seleucid dynast. Euthydemus sent his son to Antiochus’ camp to confirm. This prince achieved more than simply ratifying this peace.

Upon meeting Euthydemus’ son, Antiochus was greatly impressed by the young man’s character. In Antiochus’ eyes, he was a Hellenistic king in the making. He thus offered his daughter in marriage to the Greco-Bactrian prince as well as confirming Euthydemus as king of Bactria. The young prince’s name was Demetrius, a man who would go on to wage one of the most fascinating campaigns of antiquity.

Antiochus ‘Megas’

Departing Bactria, Antiochus would linger in the far east a while longer. Reaching the Hindu Kush, he renewed Seleucid friendship with the local king Sophagasenus before returning west. Overall, his eastern campaign had been a great success. Hyrkania, Parthia, Aria and Bactria – Antiochus had gained success in all. Yet of them all, his success and personal valour at the Arius River stood out above the rest.

Such was Antiochus’ success in Seleucid eyes that he soon acquired a new moniker. No longer was he Antiochus III; now, he was deemed Antiochus Megas, meaning, ‘the Great.’ For the next 15 years Antiochus continued to expand Seleucid territory in the Mediterranean, attempting to reconquer the final parts of Seleucus’ great empire. His successes would not ultimately last. In 192 BC, Antiochus launched a campaign against a  rising foe in the west that ultimately proved his downfall: Rome.

The rise of the Greco-Bactrians

As for Euthydemus and the Greco-Bactrians, following Antiochus’ departure, the kingdom underwent significant expansion. Under both Euthydemus and his son Demetrius, the Greco-Bactrian Empire began to form. Their subjects honoured the Euthydemid dynasty in return:

Heliodotos dedicated this fragrant altar for Hestia, venerable goddess, illustrious amongst all, in the grove of Zeus, with beautiful trees; he made libations and sacrifices so that the greatest of all kings Euthydemus, as well as his son, the glorious, victorious and remarkable Demetrius, be preserved of all pains…

A dedication to Hestia in honour of Euthydemus and Demetrius, discovered in modern-day Tajikistan

From making contact with the Chinese (whom they called the Seres) in the East, to Arachosia and India in the South, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom would become the dominant force in the far-east – with their descendants even managing to campaign as far as the Ganges river.

Here are more generals who sought fame and fortune in the Wars of the Successors.

1. Antigonus

Antigonus served as both a general and a governor in the armies of Alexander the Great and Philip II. Following Alexander’s death, Antigonus was a leading player in the Wars of the Successors and, for a time, the most powerful person in the known world. His unprecedented power soon brought the ire of other claimants, who ganged up against him after he made clear he wanted the whole of Alexander the Great’s empire for himself.

The kingdoms of Antigonus and his rivals circa 303 BC

Image Credit: Public Domain / History Hit

He fought his last hoorah at Ipsus in 301 BC, aged 80. He remained on the field of battle until the end, faithful that Demetrius, his son, would rescue him from danger. Yet Demetrius never came and one of the behemoths of the period perished in a shower of enemy javelins.

2. Eumenes

Eumenes was the underdog of the Successor Wars, a Greek who hailed from a modest background in Cardia yet whose intelligence was noted by King Philip II. He served as Philip’s and then Alexander’s secretary. During his campaigns in India, Alexander tested Eumenes’ military capability when he gave him a minor command in his army in which Eumenes excelled.

Following Alexander’s death, Eumenes professed to serve the Macedonian royal family, the Argeads. He therefore first served Perdiccas, the regent, as one of his closest advisors. Eumenes achieved one of the most exceptional victories of the Successor Wars when he defeated Craterus in battle.

Eumenes’ greatest military rivalry began when Antipater tasked Antigonus to hunt down and defeat Eumenes. They faced each other in four battles that would take them from Asia Minor to the plains of Iran. Eventually, when it appeared victory was within his grasp, Eumenes was betrayed by his best men, the Silver Shields – veterans of Alexander the Great’s army – who handed Eumenes over to his foe. With apparent reluctance Antigonus gave the order for Eumenes’ execution in the winter of 316 BC.

3. Craterus

Craterus was the leading infantry commander during the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Following Alexander’s death Craterus became a major player during the early years of the Wars of the Successors. He developed a reputation as a formidable commander who had looked out for the army more than any other general.

However Craterus was outwitted by Eumenes in 321 BC, when the latter defeated and killed Craterus and many of his men in battle somewhere in western Asia Minor, near the Hellespont.

The fight of Eumenes against Neoptolemus, Battle of the Hellespont (321 BC). 1878 engraving.

Image Credit: Public Domain

4. Seleucus

Seleucus was one of the period’s most fascinating characters. A renowned general, he rose to control an empire stretching from Macedonia to Bactria within 35 years. He was a shrewd commander, political dealer and administrator – which helps explain why he was so successful when so many others were not. He outlived all the other successors but was assassinated in 280 BC when he was within miles of reaching Macedonia, his homeland, which he had not set foot in for over 50 years.

5. Cassander

The man who ended Alexander the Great’s bloodline was Cassander, son of Antipater, an early prominent player in the period’s feuds. He is recipient of a somewhat infamous reputation, for he was responsible for the deaths of four of Alexander the Great’s closest relatives: his mother, his wife, his legitimate son and his illegitimate son.

6. Antipater

When Alexander departed on his Persian Campaign, he knew he needed a steady hand to remain at home. To maintain control in Europe, Alexander left authority with a 65 year old man called Antipater. It proved a wise decision. Antipater managed these provinces with an iron fist, crushing dissent to Alexander’s rule. Following Alexander’s death, Antipater became one of the most senior figures in the empire.

He immediately faced trouble at home when the Athenians and Aetolians revolted in what is now known as the Lamian War. Antipater initially suffered defeat to the rebels but was rescued by Craterus, who sofrced Athens’ surrender soon afterwards.

When Antipater learned that Perdiccas, the regent, spought to nullify the marriage with his daughter Nicaea in favour of Alexander the Great’s sister Cleopatra, Antipater declared war on Perdiccas. This triggered the First War of the Successors. After Perdiccas’ death, Antipater became the new regent of the empire, though not for long. By 319 BC, he was eighty years old. After returning to Macedonia, his active lifestyle caught up with him. Exhausted, Antipater died peacefully from old age.

7. Polyperchon

When Antipater died in 319 BC, many expected his successor would be his son Cassander. Judging Cassander too strong to govern successfully, however, Antipater named another his successor: the veteran Polyperchon. Polyperchon had been a leading infantry general. After Alexander’s death he became a key aide of Antipater, and after Antipater’s death, Cassander became a discontented subordinate of Polyperchon. From the off, Polyperchon’s rule was in trouble. Although achieving some successes, Polyperchon was soon overthrown and forced to flee by Cassander.

Ptolemy, left, and Demetrius, right.

Image Credit: History Hit

8. Demetrius

Demetrius was the son of Antigonus, and a man raised for war. He won his greatest victory in 306 BC off the coast of Cyprus when his Antigonid fleet crushed the navy of Ptolemy, although his success in this battle was soon overshadowed by humiliation the following year when he failed to capture the island of Rhodes. Demetrius was easily swayed by opportunities for merry-making and in the end died in a pitiful state, drinking himself to death while a captive of Seleucus in 283 BC.

9. Leosthenes

Leosthenes was an Athenian mercenary general who, for reasons unknown, developed a legendary loathing for Alexander. In 324 BC, Leosthenes commanded a mercenary army which supported Athens’ revolt from the Macedonian empire. Leosthenes was elected state military commander and his charismatic leadership caused many Greek city states to side with them against the Macedonians.

With over 30,000 Greeks, Leosthenes gained a victory against Antipater, and it appeared only a matter of time before the Greek city states would be free. Yet one day, as Leosthenes led cavalry to repulse a Macedonian attack, he was struck by a catapult bolt shot from a Macedonian siege engine on the walls of Lamia. His death soon afterwards may well have helped the subsequent crushing of the revolt.

10. Cleitus the White

Cleitus the White was the admiral of the Macedonian fleet that was created in 323 BC and tasked with supporting the return of Craterus and 10,000 Macedonian veterans to Europe. He played a key role in crushing the Athenian revolt when his navy won at least three decisive naval engagements. When the First War of the Successors erupted between Antipater and Perdiccas, Cleitus sided with Antipater, the most powerful man in Europe, and allowed his forces to cross the Hellespont into Asia unhindered.

For the next three years Cleitus controlled the most powerful navy in the known world. Yet in 318 BC, his siding with Polyperchon, the new ruler of Macedonia, put him at odds with Antigonus and Cassander. Their rivalry ended with the complete destruction of Cleitus’ navy following a surprise attack.

11. Ptolemaus

Another lesser-known general was Ptolemaus, nephew of Antigonus. He served as a trusted commander and secured western Asia Minor for the Antigonid cause in 312 BC. He was sent to Greece with an army and gained successes for Antigonus, establishing himself as a dominant power in the Peleponnese. Ptolemaus’ loyalty to his uncle, however, wavered after Antigonus began giving Demetrius, his son, increasing authority. Ptolemaus soon began considering betrayal, but died in 309 BC while trying to gain the support of his namesake, Ptolemy, ruler of Egypt.

12. Alexander

Alexander was the son of Polyperchon and one of the most underrated generals of the Successor Wars. Having gained a reputation as a formidable military commander, Alexander sailed to Tyre and confirmed an alliance between Polyperchon, himself and the Antigonids. However, Alexander’s loyalty proved flimsy as he betrayed Polyperchon, his own father, later that year after taking a bribe. Alexander did not live long following this act. He was killed while laying siege to Sicyon in 314 BC. His wife continued the siege and became another of antiquity’s greatest warrior women:

13. Cratesipolis

Following the death of her husband, Cratesipolis conquered the city of Sicyon. The Sicyonians, believing it would be easy to overthrow her, soon attempted a coup. She quelled the revolt with ease, with the full support of her soldiers. Cratesipolis remained a major player in the Peloponnese for a few years, but she later gave up her power to Ptolemy and retreated to Patras to live out the rest of her days in peace.

14. Alcetas

Alcetas was a Macedonian general who served in the army of Alexander the Great. He is best known as the younger brother of Perdiccas, who was one of Alexander’s most trusted generals. Alcetas staunchly supported his older brother and demonstrated his support in 322 BC by slaying Cynane as she attempted to place her daughter on the Macedonian throne.

Alcetas’ loyalty was strained in 321 BC when he refused to aid Eumenes against Antipater and Craterus. He remained in Pisidia for two years, fending off attacks from neighbouring governors under orders to execute him as an enemy of the state. He was finally outwitted by Antigonus and, realising all was lost, he committed suicide in 319 BC.

15. Peithon

Peithon, the son of a Macedonian nobleman called Agenor, served as an officer in Alexander’s army. When he departed India in 325 BC, Alexander left Peithon to govern the new province of the lower Indus – one of the most volatile satrapies in the empire due to the massacres inflicted in the region. Peithon remained in India for the ten years before he returned to aid Antigonus. He was appointed satrap of Babylon in 315 BC, after Seleucus fled the city. He became a military advisor to Demetrius, Antigonus’ son, and in the battle at Gaza (312 BC) he was killed.

The odds appeared firmly stacked against the Thebans. Their army was outnumbered and faced a Spartan-led force confident of victory. Yet the result of this encounter would decide the future for both Thebes and Sparta: futures of supremacy or subjugation.

4th century BC Greece

Greece at the start of the 4th fourth century BC was still reeling from its recent history. The Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War had decimated Athens’ military power and left the victors the dominant city in the Greek world. But already wars had broken out, with prestigious cities such as Corinth and Athens desperate for independence from the Spartan yoke.

For Sparta, victory in the Peloponnesian War was just the start. They sought lasting authority. Like Athens and Corinth, Thebes resented the Spartan influence. By 378 BC, enough was enough. That year, a successful coup by a small group of Theban exiles succeeded in expelling both Sparta’s military and political presence from the city. Thebes celebrated. They had thrown off “the fetters of the Lacedaemonian supremacy, which were thought indissoluble and not to be broken,” in Plutarch’s words.

The Boeotian War

For the next seven years, war between these two cities ensued. Neither side could land anything near a decisive blow. This indecisiveness benefited Thebes significantly as their influence in their homeland of Boeotia grew stronger. With that came confidence that they could topple Sparta in its own field of expertise: warfare.

Both Theban leaders Epaminondas and Pelopidas were men who had, according to Plutarch, “a divine desire of seeing their country glorious by their exertions”. They dreamt of a powerful Greece, lead by their own glorious city. 

Failed negotiations

And so we get to 371 BC. Following an attempt to end the war, Sparta made peace with Athens and other major Greek cities that had also taken part in this conflict. Yet there was one notable failure. Epaminondas, buoyed by ambition, confidence or hatred of Spartan leadership, refused to agree to the treaty. The reason? Such a treaty would have removed Theban influence it had gained over its neighbouring cities and reinstated Sparta as the dominant power.

This would have reversed all the steps he had so far. Why should his city give up control of its allies when Sparta would not consider doing the same with theirs? Peace talks failed, but they had achieved one critical matter. The war for supremacy was now solely between these two contestants and their allies. Within twenty days of the failed talks, both armies faced each other on the plain of Leuctra.

The Battle of Leuctra 371 BC

Leuctra’s landscape was well-suited for warfare centred around the hoplite infantryman. Armed with a spear and shield these men fought as one in trained formations called phalanxes. Although cavalry and light troops were usually also at these battles, it was these heavy infantrymen that almost always decided the fate of the engagement.

Leuctra was ideal for this warfare. A flat plain with dry ground and zero obstacles allowed the formations to be maintained with relative ease. Indeed, the plain of Leuctra became so ideal for settling Greek disputes that it became known as the ‘dancing floor of Greek war.’ Battle was imminent and the Spartan force, outnumbering that of the Thebans by a ratio of 3:2, was confident of victory. Yet Epaminondas and Pelopidas had their own reason for confidence.

The critical innovation

Epaminondas knew how the Spartans would fight. He knew two things of the enemy: that their cavalry was atrocious and their best troops would be located on the right flank. These troops would be the Spartans themselves, hoping to bulldoze their opposing forces and then envelop the rest of the opposing army. Yet in their own army, the Spartans themselves numbered only 700. The majority of its army was made up of its allies, forced to send troops due to treaty obligations. Thus if the Spartans themselves were defeated, these allies would have no reason for fighting.

Here came the simple, but deadly innovation. Rather than lining up in a similar fashion to the Spartan army, Epaminondas concentrated his strongest forces on the left wing. The intent was to destroy the Spartan force before the rest of the army had even engaged. Rigorous military training of these Thebans, instigated by Epaminondas, meant that these men were no mere levies, but capable fighters. Spearheading these soldiers was Thebes’ Sacred Band.

The Sacred Band

Lead by Pelopidas, these 300 men were the cream of the Theban army and their answer to the full-time professional soldiers of Sparta. Consistent training and fitness had made them more than equal to their counterparts. For the first time, Sparta was not the only Greek power with full-time soldiers.

Following the destruction of the Spartan cavalry at Leuctra by their own superior mounted troops, the Thebans, fronted by the Sacred Band, charged the Spartan foot. Despite resistance, even after their king, Cleombrotus, had fallen, the Spartans succumbed to the Boeotian phalanx. Plutarch recalls “That there began such a flight and slaughter amongst the Spartans as was never known before”.

Epaminondas defending Pelopidas at the Siege of Mantinea (385 BC).

Image Credit: Public Domain

Seeing Spartan troops in flight, Sparta’s allies refused to engage. The battle was over. Epaminondas’ tactics and militarisation of the Theban army had resulted in a glorious victory. Pausanias even went as far to state that this victory was the most famous ever won by Greeks over Greeks. The Spartans had simply been outgeneralled. Spartan supremacy began to crumble and Thebes became the new dominant city in the Greek world. Epaminondas and Pelopidas, through their efforts to make this happen, had achieved their goal.

Theban dominance would be short-lived. Both men died shortly after Leuctra in different battles (Epaminondas at Mantinea and Pelopidas in Thessaly). Following their deaths, Theban power crumbled and Greece again became divided and weak. But such division directly paved the way for a new power; that of Philip II of Macedon and his son, Alexander.

Influencing a king

One of the most fascinating consequences from Leuctra was its influence on the future Philip II of Macedon. A hostage in Thebes at the time of Leuctra, he would have undoubtedly heard of the heroics of the city’s soldiers. Philip’s own innovations to the Macedonian army followed Epaminondas’ demonstration of how the Greek phalanx could be beaten.

Like the Thebans at Leuctra, this phalanx’s strength came from very deep ranks. Its men carried radical six-metre-long pikes, combined with sufficient training to maintain this radical new formation, even when active on the battlefield! Philip also increased the effectiveness of his cavalry. Leuctra had shown that the use of cavalry and infantry in joint action could have a devastating impact.

Philip’s new-look Macedonian army would prove its worth against the Greek cities (including Thebes’ Sacred Band) 33 years later at Chaeronea. This victory would pave the way for Philip’s son, Alexander, to become one of the greatest generals in antiquity.

Within three years of Alexander’s demise, political rivalries and ambitions to match the achievements of their predecessor resulted in chaos. Commanders and colleagues drew arms against each other in a deadly fight for dominance. Among them were Eumenes and Antigonus.

Eumenes and Antigonus

Regarded as one of the most fascinating generals of the period following Alexander’s death, Eumenes was a Greek of a non-aristocratic background who gained renown as the personal secretary of Alexander. Although not a military commander in this role, his was one of the most important in the kingdom. Eumenes wrote the letters and correspondence of the conqueror himself. Eumenes acquired prestige, becoming a key player in a world mainly ruled by aristocratic Macedonians.

Following Alexander’s death, Eumenes faced challenges from the aristocrat generals. On multiple occasions they would try to have him murdered by his own soldiers. Eumenes defied all such attempts; he deployed cunning and brilliance as a private secretary turned-commander.

The fight of Eumenes against Neoptolemus, Battle of the Hellespont (321 BC). 1878 engraving.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Antigonus, meanwhile, embodied the stereotype of Alexander’s successors: a Macedonian aristocrat who had served as a general in the conquest of Persia. Like other claimants to Alexander’s succession, Antigonus desired power in the reconfigured empire.

The fight for the empire

By 318 BC, five years after Alexander’s death, a crucial war for control raged between these capable men. To date Eumenes had defied the odds, despatching opponents in Craterus and Neoptolemus. He had been so successful that he took the title of ‘King’s General in Asia’, an eminent position for only the most successful and loyal of generals.

Antigonus travelled from the west to extinguish Eumenes’ success. On hearing of Antigonus’ arrival, Eumenes in turn hastily marched his forces east. What followed was a cat and mouse campaign: whenever Antigonus thought he had Eumenes cornered, this Greek would somehow escape his grasp.

An end in sight

Eumenes’ military genius paid off, however. By 316 BC, Antigonus was on the brink of total defeat. Having followed Eumenes all the way to modern day Iran with a large army of infantry, cavalry and elephants, the two forces repeatedly collided. In each engagement, Eumenes’ army inflicted heavy losses on Antigonus, and lost few men. In the final battle at Gabiene, Antigonus’ army was soundly beaten by Eumenes.

Most historians agree that Eumenes was in a position to almost certainly defeat Antigonus. But this did not happen. On the brink of victory, Eumenes was handed over to Antigonus and executed.

Won the battle, lost the war

Eumenes appeared to have won the battle, yet one action during the fight damned him. In Eumenes’ army was an infantry unit called the Argyraspids (literally meaning, the ‘Silver Shields’). In 316 BC, these men were the most famous soldiers in the world. They had served alongside Alexander on his epic conquest, and fought for famous victories at Issus, Gaugamela and the Hydaspes River. Sources such as Diodorus emphasise that these famed veterans also won Eumenes his military achievements.

Though the most famous soldiers in the world, these veterans also proved the most difficult to control. They had followed Alexander to the ends of the world. They worshipped almost like a god. Who, they thought, could be as worthy as Alexander to command such a prestigious fighting force? Thus, even with Eumenes’ tactical brilliance and command, maintaining control of these troops proved almost impossible.

The baggage train problem

It was the actions of this unruly elite force that ultimately doomed Eumenes. Antigonus, although soundly beaten at Gabiene, had one saving grace. With his cavalry, Antigonus managed to capture Eumenes’ baggage train: the portable camp where all the booty was located, as well as the wives and children who travelled with the army. The problem here was the Argyraspids – the Silver Shields. As Edward Anson highlights, the baggage train’s capture,

included their families and the loot of a decade’s service in Asia […] the sources are very clear that the Argyraspids’ only concern was to retrieve their possessions and families […] their camp had become their home.

Edward Anson, Eumenes of Cardia (2004)

In one act, Antigonus had taken everything these veterans held dearly. Now, they wanted it back. The baggage train incident was actually just the tip of the iceberg. Underlying dissatisfaction towards Eumenes by the Silver Shield commanders and other generals was already present. If we are to believe Plutarch, the Argyraspid commander, Antigenes and a few other generals, had already been planning to betray Eumenes before the battle had even started.

The result

Instead of finally destroying Antigonus and his army, Eumenes woke up to be handed over to his adversary. Antigonus treated his new found captive with respect, having come to admire his captive’s formidable skill. He therefore pondered over the Greek’s fate for a few days. In the end, however, Antigonus decided not to be merciful. Having been starved for three days, Eumenes was executed. Thus ends the tale of Eumenes. A man whose superb, albeit short, military career was ended by an inglorious act of treachery by his own men.

Antigonus went on to have a wealthy and highly ambitious career that culminated at the climactic Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Ultimately his family would end up establishing its own dynasty that would rule over Macedonia for the next 100 years; eventually confronting an expansionist Rome in 168 BC.

Meanwhile the treachery of the Argyraspids led Antigonus to condemn them. He ordered his troops to throw the Argryraspid general, Antigenes, into a pit where they had him burned alive. The rest of the veterans were reportedly sent to a far-flung corner of the known world, where they might perish fighting in dangerous missions; a brutal end to the men who helped forge Alexander’s Empire.

The background in 312 BC

In 312 BC, two of the most powerful leaders controlling Alexander’s former empire were Antigonus and Ptolemy. Antigonus had risen to rule over most of Alexander’s Asian territories; meanwhile Ptolemy controlled Egypt and neighbouring lands in Syria and coastal Libya. That year, these two figures had clashed in a decisive land battle at Gaza, where Ptolemy defeated an Antigonid army commanded by Demetrius, Antigonus’ son.

The aftermath of Ptolemy’s victory at Gaza, 312 BC. Ptolemy now pressed his advantage, reclaiming territories as far north as Tyre.

Image Credit: History Hit

With his army shattered following the debacle at Gaza, Demetrius retreated north to Cilicia. Ptolemy then pressed his advantage, reclaiming territories as far north as Tyre. He also permitted Seleucus, the former governor of Babylon and Ptolemy’s ally at Gaza, to head east and reassert his authority in Babylon, providing him with a small army.

Down but not out

News reached Ptolemy, then in Coele Syria, that Demetrius had returned and was stationed in northern Syria with a small army. Believing he had conclusively beaten Demetrius, Ptolemy ordered one of his generals, Cilles, to lead an army north and crush the remnants of the Antigonid’s forces. But this proved careless. Near a town named Myus, Demetrius successfully ambushed Cilles’ army, capturing 7,000 troops and much wealth in the process.

Buoyed, Demetrius returned to his base and requested reinforcements from his father, Antigonus. At that time, Antigonus was residing hundreds of miles away at Celaenae in Anatolia. He had recently defeated the forces of Ptolemy’s allies in Caria and taken control of Asia’s Aegean coastline. On receiving Demetrius’ letter, however, Antigonus once again headed east.

The Nabataean War

In late 312 BC, the one-eyed general Antigonus – now nearly 70 years old – arrived in Syria. Joining with Demetrius, he recaptured all the lands that his son had lost, forcing Ptolemy to retreat his forces to Egypt. Antigonus pursued him, arriving at Ptolemy’s border with over 80,000 men. Yet his gaze would be quickly diverted to the South-East, where the Nabataeans – an Arab nation with an important node at Petra – were hostile to him.

As a precursor to the invasion of Egypt, Antigonus thus decided to launch a campaign against these people. Things didn’t go to plan. Although Demetrius managed to besiege Petra, the campaign proved costly and time-consuming. In the end the two sides reached an agreement. Neither Antigonus nor the Nabataeans made any real gains from the treaty. Yet for Antigonus, it was undoubtedly humiliating.

The rise of Seleucus

It was then however, in the fall of 311 BC, that news reached Antigonus which changed his plans completely. In the east, Seleucus had successfully recaptured Babylon and defeated the Antigonid army in Iran. Upon hearing this, Antigonus shelved any plans to invade Egypt; the threat of losing his eastern provinces to Seleucus was too great. Antigonus therefore proposed peace-talks with his fellow Successors – most notably Cassander in Macedon (northern Greece) and Lysimachus in Thrace (Bulgaria). Ptolemy was later also included. In the end, peace was agreed.

The ramifications of this peace would be far-reaching. At that time in the Macedonian homeland, Alexander the Great’s son, Alexander IV, was 14 years old and many now thought him old enough to take full control. Yet the authoritative Cassander had no intention of allowing this. Cassander had Alexander IV, along his with mother, Roxane, assassinated. Soon afterwards, the Macedonian regent also had Heracles, a bastard child of Alexander the Great, similarly executed.

The Argead dynasty had been wiped out; the consequences would soon be clear for all to see.

The Babylonian War, 308 BC

Back in Syria, with the treaty agreed, Antigonus was free to focus on Seleucus. He dispatched Demetrius with 19,000 men to tackle his new foe. In the beginning of 310 BC, Demetrius and his army reached Babylon. Yet Seleucus, on his arrival, had already departed with most of his forces, leaving Demetrius free to capture most of the city without a fight. One citadel however remained in Seleucus’ control and defiantly resisted.

Not able to afford a lengthy siege, Demetrius left 6,000 of his troops under the command of his general, Archelaus, to continue the siege while he returned west, to his impatient father. Seleucus proved a dogged opponent. Later that year, with the issue still not settled, Antigonus himself was forced to lead an army east to fight this enemy. Our knowledge of this war, dubbed the Babylonian War, is almost non-existent.

Yet we do know that following Antigonus’ sacking of Babylon, Seleucus defeated Antigonus in a major battle in 308 BC and a peace was agreed. In this act, Antigonus’ hold on the East was severed and the ageing general returned west.

The Fourth War of the Diadochi erupts

Meanwhile, a new threat had been growing for Antigonus: his old adversary Ptolemy had been secretly intriguing against him while he was fighting Seleucus, gaining territory and influence in the Aegean. Determined to reassert his power, Antigonus ordered his son Demetrius to cross over from Ephesus and conquer the forces of Cassander and Ptolemy in Greece.

Demetrius landed at Athens in 307 BC, quickly gaining control from Cassander. Further successes were to follow for the young Antigonid at both Megara and Munichya. It was then however, that Demetrius received very different instructions from his father, who had remained at his new capital, Antigoneia, in Syria.

Cyprus

Antigonus had been eyeing one of Ptolemy’s most-prized possessions: the island of Cyprus. He ordered Demetrius to leave Greece with his army and return east. Demetrius promptly obeyed and early in 306 BC, he departed Athens with most of his army and headed towards Cyprus. On his way, Demetrius stopped at Rhodes, hoping to acquire use of the formidable Rhodian navy. The Rhodians however, refused, claiming neutrality.

Demetrius continued east and soon reached Cilicia, where more troops awaited him, sent from his father. Reinforced, Antigonus’ son crossed over to Cyprus, landing on the Karpass peninsula with 15,000 infantry and 400 cavalry in the Spring of 306 BC. He also had 110 triremes, 53 heavy warships and many troop transports. Demetrius solidified their position on the island, capturing the towns of Carpasia and Ourania. He then turned to his main goal: the city of Salamis.

Having secured the Karpass Peninsula, Demetrius’ army and navy headed to the Menelaus’ capital at Salamis.

Image Credit: History Hit

The Siege of Salamis, 306 BC

As Demetrius approached Salamis, the Ptolemaic forces stationed there – some 12,000 infantry and 800 cavalry, under the command of Ptolemy’s brother, Menelaus – were awaiting his arrival on a nearby plain. Battle ensued, and Demetrius won the victory, killing 1,000 and capturing 3,000 of Menelaus’ forces. With his remaining forces, Menelaus retreated to Salamis.

Demetrius besieged the city on both land and sea. He had previous expertise of sieges, most notably at Munichya, and he therefore had many siege weapons in his army – mechanical engines such as catapults and ballistae, designed especially to help assault a settlement.

The ‘Helepolis’

To aid him further, Demetrius also ordered the construction of some formidable siege engines, including two battering rams and a siege tower. This was no ordinary siege tower however. Nine-stories high, it was the largest the world had yet seen. They called it the helepolis, the ‘taker of cities.’ The attackers needed over a month to construct the engines. When completed, Demetrius ordered the assault. Both the rams and helepolis succeeded in clearing the walls; soon, the city appeared to be on the brink of defeat.

That night however, Menelaus sallied out from Salamis and burnt down Demetrius’ siege engines. With them destroyed, the city gained the respite they had needed: the siege continued.

Ptolemy heads to Cyprus

Menelaus had meanwhile sent word to his brother Ptolemy of the situation. Ptolemy had quickly taken action; he was determined not to lose control of Cyprus – an island so critical to his naval power. Gathering a large army and navy, Ptolemy sailed over to Cyprus, arriving at Paphos with a fleet of 140 warships and 200 troop transports carrying 10,000 infantry. As Ptolemy then proceeded along the south coast of the island, his Ptolemaic allies situated on Cyprus further bolstered the army.

Reinforced, the armada quickly reached Kiton. There, Ptolemy sent word to Menelaus. He knew that if they could combine their naval forces together, then their force would have a great numerical advantage over their Antigonid foe. He thus ordered Menelaus, under the cover of night to sneak the 60 ships he had in Salamis out of the harbour to join with his forces before Demetrius could become aware. Demetrius, however, got word of Ptolemy’s plans.

That night, Demetrius placed both his siege equipment and best men aboard his ships, and sailing around to the harbour of Salamis, ensured any attempt by Menelaus to sneak past his lines would prove impossible.

After Demetrius had foiled Ptolemy’s plan, Ptolemy sailed around Cape Pedalium with his navy and confronted Demetrius’ navy off the coast south of Salamis.

Image Credit: History Hit

Deployment

As Menelaus’ forces failed to arrive, Ptolemy realised his plans had been foiled; nevertheless he sailed round Cape Pedalium with his armada and prepared for battle. On seeing Ptolemy’s arrival, Demetrius quickly reorganised. He left ten ships to blockade the narrow exit of Salamis’ harbour, preventing Menelaus’ sally. The rest of his navy, he placed facing Ptolemy.

On his left, Demetrius deployed his greatest ships in a double line, hoping to quickly crush Ptolemy’s right. Demetrius stationed himself in the front ranks of this wing, although he himself was not to be in command. Realising his inexperience at naval warfare, he had sensibly deferred command to his most experienced admiral, Medius of Larissa. For the rest of his ships, Demetrius deployed them in a single line. Adopting a similar strategy, Ptolemy strengthened his own left wing, hoping to quickly break through his opponent’s right.

The Battle of Salamis, 306 BC

The battle commenced with an advance by Demetrius against Ptolemy’s right. Very quickly, Demetrius’ most powerful warships, aided by siege engines they had attached, destroyed his opposing forces. Medius now ordered the ships starboard and to start folding up Ptolemy’s line with Demetrius himself being in the thickest of the action. Meanwhile, Ptolemy had successfully overcome Demetrius’ right flank. His attack proved too slow however and as he began to envelop Demetrius’ centre, he saw with dismay that the enemy had already routed the rest of his fleet.

Believing the battle lost, Ptolemy retreated. Meanwhile, Menelaus successfully managed to break through Demetrius’ 10-ship blockade, but it would prove too late. By the time Menelaus had entered the battlefield, Ptolemy was already in flight.

Ptolemaic humiliation, Antigonid supremacy

The engagement had been a disaster for Ptolemy. His adversaries had captured over 40 of his ships as well as 100 supply vessels, along with their crews and possibly one of Ptolemy’s sons, Leontiscus. As for Demetrius, only 20 of his ships had been damaged, although scholars now debate whether Demetrius lost more on his right wing.

The implications of this victory were far reaching. Salamis surrendered to Demetrius and Menelaus retreated to Alexandria. As Salamis fell, all other Ptolemaic holdings in Cyprus followed suit. In total, Demetrius reportedly captured 16,000 infantry and 600 cavalry – many of whom then joined the Antigonid army. For Ptolemy, the battle had been a disaster, losing control of Cyprus, one of his most cherished possessions.

Yet for the Antigonids, Demetrius’ victory meant that their power was now unmatched on both land and sea; they were the period’s superpower.

On that spot the Chalcidians settled and established the first Greek settlement on Sicily. It was named Naxus.

Naxus was situated on Sicily’s eastern coastline, adjacent to Mount Etna.

Image Credit: History Hit

Naxus was the first of many Greek colonies in Sicily. Within ten years of its foundation, six more Hellenic settlements had been established on the island; within a hundred years that number was nearer twenty. By the turn of the 5th century BC, Greek cities dotted Sicily’s eastern and southern coastlines. No longer were they all small, isolated settlements however. By then many had become prominent political entities on the island, ruled by powerful tyrants.

Hippocrates

In 491 BC, much of eastern Sicily lay in the hands of one such man. His name was Hippocrates, the ruler of a relatively minor Greek city called Gela. Despite its small size, under Hippocrates’ leadership Gela became the nucleus of the most powerful kingdom in Sicily.

Conquest after conquest, victory after victory, by 491 BC Hippocrates and his army looked unstoppable. Still no rapid expansion continues forever and later that year Hippocrates was killed while laying siege to Megara Hyblae, one of the last cities on the eastern coastline that remained resisting his power. The age of Hippocrates was over; but another ambitious tyrant soon took his place.

Hippocrates’ Empire in 491 BC. It stretched from Zancle in the North-east to the Himeras River in the south.

Image Credit: History Hit

Gelon

Emerging from a noble background, Gelon had been a senior cavalry officer in Hippocrates’ army. He was well-respected among the soldiers and Gelon used this to his advantage, seizing control and naming himself Hippocrates’ successor. He aimed to continue the expansion his predecessor had started. But things, initially, did not go according to plan.

Not long after gaining power, Gelon lost control of Zancle, the Greek bastion in the north-east, to the rival tyrant Anaxilas who was based across the narrow straits in Rhegium. It was a blow for Gelon. Never again would he control that vital part of the island, the gateway to southern Italy. It was not all bad news.

Outdoing Hippocrates

In his lifetime Hippocrates had conquered almost all of Sicily’s eastern shoreline. Yet two Greek cities had eluded his grasp: Megara Hyblae and Syracuse. Both cities would play prominent roles in any biography of Hippocrates: he had lost his life outside the walls of the former and against the latter he had won perhaps his greatest victory in 492 BC, at the Battle of the Helorus River.

He had, however, not taken Syracuse in the aftermath of this decisive battle and the city remained free from Hippocrates’ control.

By 483 BC Gelon had fulfilled Hippocrates’ grand ambitions. Not only had he successfully stormed and suppressed Megara Hyblae, but he had also subdued Syracuse. Syracuse’s submission was especially pivotal. Recognising its potential for power and prosperity, Gelon situated his court there, depopulating neighbouring towns and relocating them in his forecast metropolis. No longer was Gela the epicentre of Gelon’s empire. That role now lay with Syracuse.

The alliance

Recreating Syracuse was one piece in a much larger puzzle for Gelon. Back in circa 490 BC, when Gelon was seeking to establish his regime, he allied himself with another powerful tyrant on the island: Theron, the ruler of Acragas. Joining their domains in an alliance, the newly-established Syracusan-Acragas bloc controlled a significant portion of the east and south of the island.

But they weren’t the only major force in Sicily. To the west, stretching along the length of Sicily’s north coast, the north African city of Carthage had significant influence.

Carthage in Sicily

Originally founded by Phoenician colonists back around 814 BC, the city of Carthage had soon become the centre of a large empire. Spain, Sardinia, Numidia, the Balearic Islands and Libya were all places the Carthaginians settled. Yet one lucrative land attracted Punic eyes more than any other: Sicily, the jewel of the Mediterranean.

In the 8th century BC, these ‘Punic’ settlers had founded Motya on Sicily’s extreme western edge – their first colony. Further settlements followed and very quickly Punic influence had gained a strong foothold over Sicily’s northern and western shorelines, within which was included some notable Greek and Siciliote settlements – Selinus, Segesta and Eryx for instance. By 483 BC, Carthaginian influence spread the length of these two coastlines, from Selinus in the west to Rhegium in southern Italy.

Much of Sicily was therefore divided between two power blocs in 483 BC: Gelon and Theron to the east and south, Carthage and its allies to the north and west. Before this time relations between them had been cordial, though occasional territorial incidents had occurred. In 580 BC, for instance, Greek settlers had audaciously attempted to found a settlement on the western tip of Sicily, near Lilybaeum. The Carthaginians were having none of it and they swiftly defeated the expedition.

70 years later the Carthaginians destroyed another expedition, led by a royal Spartan called Doreius (the brother of the famed Leonidas), which had similarly aimed to establish a settlement in western Sicily within the Punic sphere. Both of these incidents may have rustled patriotic feathers on either side, but full-scale war never seemed likely. But by 483 BC, it was fast approaching.