The article is devoted to the problem of participation of minor diadochs in the process of political disintegration of the empire of Alexander the Great. The focus is on the so-called lists of satrapies - agreements on the distribution of satrapies concluded between the diadochi in 323 BC in Babylon and in 320 BC in Triparadis. A detailed analysis of the lists, as well as the traditions of Hieronymus of Cardia, show changes in the distribution of power among the diadochi, which occurred in a fairly short period - from 323 to 320 BC.

Key words: Hellenism, Diadochi, Hieronymus of Cardia.

The phenomenon of the lesser Diadochi, Alexander's political heirs, who can be called second-order figures of the early Hellenistic era, has never attracted special attention of researchers. The traditional perception of the circumstances of the collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great through the prism of events related to the personalities of the great diadochi developed a specific system of knowledge and ideas about the political history of this period. Of course, the central place in it is occupied by the leaders of their time-Antigonus the One-Eyed, Ptolemy, Cassander, Eumenes, Perdiccas and some others. On the contrary, other participants in the seemingly same political processes remain in the shadow of their contemporaries: their historical role and significance are noticeably understated, even to the point of almost complete oblivion2. Sometimes it seems that there are more than four dozen historical figures who can be called diadochs (political heirs of Alexander, who began their career during his lifetime and participated in the Great Patriotic War).

The work was carried out within the framework of the Russian State Science Foundation grant 14-31-01233 "The Collapse of the Empire of Alexander the Great in the context of political biographies of "small" diadochs".

1 Only prosopographic studies can make exceptions here. See [Berve, 1926; Heckel, 1992; Heckel, 2006].

2 This approach is best expressed in the classic work of R. M. Errington [Errington, 1970, p. 49-77]. However, even in the next 45 years of studying the history of the diadoch wars, there were practically no significant changes in this direction, except for the fact that from time to time small diadochs are still separated into a separate group, but rather on a residual basis (see [Meeus, 2013, p.132-133]).

page 73
the division of his state), only a dozen and a half took an active part in the wars for Alexander's inheritance. It is also worth noting that geographically, the Eastern Mediterranean is more often associated with large diadochs in this system of representations, which is the focus of all researchers ' attention. Meanwhile, the empire of Alexander the Great extended much further east and included the territories of the Middle East, Central Asia and partly India. But how these regions experienced the political changes associated with Alexander's death is not well known.3
There are several reasons for this neglect, but the main problem remains the problem of sources. The activity of small diadochs is very poorly reflected in ancient sources. This is due to the fact that for ancient authors who somehow paid attention to the wars of the Diadochi, the main source was the narrative of Hieronymus of Cardia (Smirnov, 2014, pp. 161-164). Hieronymus was an active participant in the events he described. He participated in Alexander's campaign, served at the court of Eumenes of Cardia, and then the first three Antigonids. Already during the wars of the Diadochi, Jerome was a member of diplomatic missions more than once, and personally knew many Diadochi. With a high degree of probability, it can be assumed that Jerome also had the royal archive at his disposal, which, in turn, was accessible to Eumenes, who served as the royal secretary for many years [Klinkott, 2000, pp. 38-39].

Jerome's work was distinguished by a high scientific level, as well as a pragmatic approach to writing history, characterized by consistency and balanced presentation. His work was so large-scale and fundamental that it was used by all subsequent authors who wrote about the events of the Diadoch wars. In other words, Jerome was such a serious authority that it was simply impossible not to know his work. 4 Probably, this is the beginning of almost complete consistency in the narrative of all authors. In fact, the main discrepancies are observed only when comparing the information of the literary tradition with the data of epigraphy and cuneiform documents, while the works of ancient authors mostly give a homogeneous picture of events.

However, the tradition of Jerome is extremely biased, which was noted in antiquity. As a servant of the Antigonid dynasty, Jerome wrote his works in line with the general history of the dynasty, trying not only to put its representatives in the best light, but also to focus only on the subjects related to it. Following this principle, all historians who have experienced the influence of the Hieronymic tradition, in one way or another, assign a central place to the Antigonids and the events that took place around this dynasty. The history of more remote territories, such as the eastern satrapies, comes second to them.

To determine the reasons for this oblivion of the lesser Diadochs, it is of great importance to understand the tendency towards a certain historical anachronism (a retrospective view of the events of the Hellenistic era as a whole), which is characteristic of both ancient authors and modern historiography. From this point of view, in the history of Hellenism, starting from I. G. Droysen, it is customary to see the history of three large monarchies and several small ones. Early Hellenism, which thus has a subordinate position, is perceived as the time of the formation of these monarchies. Knowing the general outcome of all the wars of the Diadochi - the collapse of Alexander's empire and the formation of a system of Hellenistic states, many researchers view this period precisely from the positions of these emerging monarchies and their founders.

For a more in-depth study, it is necessary to abstract from such a perception of a given historical epoch, which is exactly what A. A. is doing. Meeus for op-

3 The only exceptions are isolated events in political history, such as the revolt of Greek mercenaries in Bactria and Sogdiana in 323-322 BC. See Koshelenko, 1972, pp. 59-78.

4 Thus, as early as the fourth century A.D., St. Jerome (FGH 260, K 36), listing the sources of Porphyry's work, suggests that Porphyry must have known Jerome's work.

page 74
to refute the prevailing historiography idea of the diadochi striving for the division of a single state [Meeus, 2013, p. 113-147; Meeus, 2014, p. 263-306], while most modern researchers, who traditionally perceive the Hellenistic period as the coexistence of several states, a priori consider the Diadochi wars to be an already formed collapse of the empire and endow almost every one of them with the intention of capture and retain a specific area of territory. The situation is similar with small diadochs. Since most of them died in the first two decades after Alexander's death, their historical significance for the history of Hellenism as a whole seems insignificant, and those political processes that are not connected or weakly connected with future large monarchies, at best, take on secondary importance.

It is important to note that almost all the authors (with the possible exception of Diodorus) who covered the events of early Hellenism did so when the Hellenistic states had already disappeared, and for many scholars the time of the Diadoch wars was covered with a romantic aura of struggle. This is probably why all the attention of these authors was focused on those personalities who gave rise to new royal dynasties or were the most prominent figures of early Hellenism. And in this case, even if, in addition to the writings of Hieronymus, there were alternative sources (which is not to be doubted)5, many authors still preferred the works of a historian from Cardia.

This article will examine the political processes of the first years after Alexander's death, specifically the period of 323-320 BC, or, as it is also commonly called in historiography ," from Babylon to Triparadis". However, the focus will not be on the central characters of the political arena (as in the work of R. M. Errington [Errington, 1970, p. 49-77]), but, on the contrary, on the minor diadochs. In this context, it is important to pay attention to the changes that have taken place in the composition of the satrap corps, which is almost entirely represented by minor diadochs, during this rather short period of time.

The first three years after Alexander's death were some of the most intense in the entire period of the Diadoch wars. It was at this time that the contours of the future confrontation were outlined, and the first unions of diadochs were formed. The events of these years developed rapidly. Immediately after the king's death, a struggle broke out in Babylon between several groups of diadochi over the heir. As a result, the winner was Perdiccas: he became regent of the empire under the formal rule of Philip Arridaeus and the unborn Alexander IV. However, his power wasn't strong enough. On the way to the regency, he encountered the opposition of Meleager and the obvious antagonism of Antipater, who, having received the position of guardian of the kings and de facto ruler of all European possessions, began to prepare for war (Errington, 1970; Bosworth, 2002; Meeus, 2008, p. 39-82).

In Babylon, in 323, the first meeting of the diadochi was held, at which, with the direct participation of Perdiccas 6, satrapies were distributed among the former associates of Alexander (Diod. XVIII.3.1-3; Just. XIII.4.10-25). The final decisions on the distribution of satrapies made in Babylon in 323, and then again in Triparadis in 320, were presented in the form of documents that received the conditional name of lists of satrapies (die Satrapienregister) [Klinkott, 2000; Smirnov, 2015]. The text of the Babylonian list in one form or another is contained in 13 sources dating back to different traditions. It is safe to assume that the most complete list, with-

5 See: [Smirnov 2009, pp. 74-79].

6 There is no consensus on the role of Perdiccas in the distribution of satrapies in historiography [Rosen, 1967, p. 106-107; Bosworth, 2002, p. 57-58; Rathmann, 2005, p. 26-27; Wheatley, 2009, p. 56; Meeus, 2008, p.68-76]. Due to the inconsistency of these sources, it is hardly possible to say whether Perdiccas distributed the posts of satraps to his supporters or not. However, it is impossible to completely exclude the participation of Perdiccas, one of the most influential diadochi, in this process.

page 75
preserved in the work of Diodorus, it belongs to the tradition of Hieronymus of Cardia. The Triparadis list is presented only in the works of Diodorus and Arrian and belongs to the same tradition, probably Hieronymic.

It is difficult to say by what principle satraps were selected, except for their noble origin, the degree of proximity to Alexander and involvement in the political process, but it is hardly possible to assume that this distribution was random [Rathmann, 2005, p. 32-33]. B. Bosworth believed [Bosworth, 2002, p. 58] that satrapies were distributed in this way so that the most influential diadochi - Lysimachus, Leonnatus, Antigonus, Eumenes-do not have the necessary strategic resources for a successful uprising. J. Seibert [Seibert, 1969, pp. 27-38] also held similar views, suggesting that the distribution of satrapies took into account certain features - the geographical location of the territory, the ethnicity of the satrap, and the possibilities of its political influence. All this was supposed to prevent the creation of alliances against the central government. On the contrary, A. Meeus believes [Meeus, 2008, p. 73-74] that satraps had all the opportunities to form alliances. Moreover, the Babylonian system of apportioning satrapies was far from perfect and naturally incited conflict, and many of the appointed satraps were (secretly or explicitly) opposed to Perdiccas.

It is also important to note that of the 24 diadochs appointed as satraps in Babylon, 16 were already satraps of 7 at that time. At the same time, all of them were simply confirmed in their positions. Some of them received satrapies during Alexander's eastern campaign, others became satraps a few months before the king's death. This circumstance suggests that if not all of them, then probably some of them could have been absent in Babylon (cf.: [Rathmann, 2005, p. 33]). This retention of more than half of the former satrap composition could have been, on the one hand, a principled position of Perdiccas, and on the other (which is more likely) - a consequence of the circumstances with which the regent had to reckon, given the weakness of his position. From the very first days after Alexander's death, a group of the most ambitious diadochi emerged, whose interests were reflected in the final decision taken in Babylon, and whose political activity was a serious test for Perdiccas.

Thus, Perdiccas really needed the support of the satraps. [8] This is confirmed by the personnel changes in the satrapies ' management system that followed immediately after the Babylonian meeting, initiated by Perdiccas himself. If we compare the Babylonian and Triparadis lists, we can see that in the short period of time (323-320) between the adoption of these two agreements, the satrap corps underwent significant changes. So, already in 320, 10 new satraps were appointed, while maintaining the total number of satrapies. These were precisely purposeful displacements carried out by the central government, and not forced replacements that arose, for example, in connection with the death of the former satrap (see below). It is obvious that these changes were purely political and reflect, on the one hand, the struggle between Perdiccas and Antipater, and, on the other, the desire of Perdiccas himself

7 Philotes (?) - Cilicia (Diod. XVIII.3.1), Atropates-Mussel (Arr. Anab. IV. 18), Menander-Lydia (Arr. Anab. III.6.8), Antipater de facto ruled Macedonia, Taxilus and Porus shared Alexander's Greek possessions in India (Arr. Anab. V. 8. 2-3), Python, son of Agenor, - the territories of India bordering on the Paropamisades (Arr. Anab. VI.15.4), Oxyartes-Paropamisades (Arr. Anab VI. 15.3), Sibirgium of Arachosia and Gsdrosia (Agg. Anab. VI. 27. 1), Tlupolum-Karmania (Arr. Anab. VI. 27. 1), Stasanor of Aria and Drangiana (Arr. Anab.III.29. 5), Philip (?) Bactria and Sogdiana (Diod. XVIII.3.3), Phrataphernes of Parthia and Hyrcania (Arr. Anab. III. 23. 4), Pevkestes - Persis (Arr. Anab. VI. 30. 2), Archon (?) - Babylonia (Diod. XVIII.3.3), Arkesilai (?) - Mesopotamia (Diod. XVIII.3.3).

8 One can hardly agree with the opinion of L. Schober (1981, p. 38) that the Eastern satrapies played only a secondary role. On the contrary, there was a lot of political activity in this region during the first years of the Diadochi confrontation.

page 76
control power in the satrapies. To achieve this, Perdiccas used several methods.

First, the practice of retaining satrapies for former satraps. In general, thanks to this, he managed to gain loyalty from some, primarily eastern, satraps. Among them are Pythonus, son of Agenor, Sibirtius, Oxyartes, Tlepolemus, and Pevkestes [Koshelenko and Gaibov, 2014, p. 158]. If we compare the Babylonian and Triparadis lists, these diadochs were both confirmed in their rights to their satrapies. Some other facts also indicate the commitment of the Eastern satraps to Perdiccas. During Python's campaign against the Greek colonists in Central Asia, the Eastern satraps unconditionally provided him with a strong army (Diod. XVIII.4.8; 7.1-9). After the death of Perdiccas, all the Eastern satraps sided with Eumenes against Antigonus. The only exception is the case of Python, the son of Crataeus. In 323, he was appointed satrap of Greater Media, thus replacing Perdiccas ' father-in-law Atropates, who had been satrap of the region before and was now forced to settle for Lesser Media. However, Python was not removed from his post, but, on the contrary, was one of the closest associates of Perdiccas. In 320. Together with Antigonus and Seleucus, Pytho took part in a conspiracy against Perdiccas, as a result of which the latter was killed (Diod. XVIII.36.5; Nep. Eum. 5).

Secondly, a kind of shuffling and replacement of some of the old Alexander satraps, 9 who obviously did not show loyalty to Perdiccas. A vivid illustration of this is the situation with Philip, Stasanor, and Fratafern [Koshelenko and Gaibov, 2014, p. 158]. Diodorus in his Babylonian list names Philip as ruler of the paired satrapy of Bactria and Sogdiana, Stasanor of Solaria and Drangiana, and Frataphernes of Parthia and Hyrcania (Diod. XVIII.3.3). In the Triparadis list of Diodorus, Philip became satrap of Parthia, Stasanor of Sol-Bactria and Sogdiana, and a certain Stasander of Cyprus (believed to be one of Stasanor's confidants) - satrap of Aria and Drangiana (Diod. XVIII.39.6). It is worth paying attention to one nuance. In Just's list (Just. XIII.4.22-23) it is noted that the satrap of Aria and Drangiana was Stasanor, Bactria-Amyntas (appointed by Alexander), Sogdiana-a certain Staganor from Sol (a clear mistake), Hyrcania-Frataphernes, and Parthia-Philip. According to L. Schober, Justin's list combines the Babylonian and Triparadis lists [Schober, 1981, S. 45]. On the contrary, H. Klinkott believes that in this case Trog / Justin could have used some non-preserved documents [Klinkott, 2000, p. 23]. The second version seems more preferable, since the key anachronisms characteristic of the Triparadis list, such as the early attribution of Babylonia to Seleucus, are absent in Justin. Apparently, these sources used by Trogus / Justin recorded a certain tendency of rotation of satraps.

It is possible that Frataphernes was removed from his posts between 323 and 320 and replaced by Philip 10, who in turn was replaced by Stasanor, who was replaced by the new satrap Stagander.

The simplest and most common way for Perdiccas was to simply replace disloyal satraps with loyal ones. Thus, in 323, one of Alexander Philotus ' generals was confirmed as the satrap of Cilicia, having received this post during the tsar's lifetime (Heckel, 1992, p. 330; Rathmann, 2005, p.42). Philotas was probably very influential at court, at least in the so-called book on Alexander's death and testament, he is mentioned as a participant in the feast at which Alexander was presented with a deadly poison (Ps. - Call. III.31.8-9). In 321 AD, Perdiccas removed Philotas from the position of satrap of Cilicia, suspecting him of having ties with Antipater

9 For the satraps of the eastern regions of the Empire appointed by Alexander, see: [Koshelenko and Gaibov, 2007, pp. 202-222; Koshelenko and Gaibov, 2014, pp. 141-175].

10 B. Bosworth believed (Bosworth, 2002, p.105) that Frataphernes was deposed at the Triparadissus meeting as a supporter and possibly even a relative of Perdiccas.

page 77
(FGHist. 156, F. 10.2). Perdiccas replaced Philota with the seemingly loyal Philoxenus. However, Philoxenes was not so devoted to Perdiccas and, like Philotas, maintained close contacts with Antipater. After the death of Perdiccas, Philotas expected Cilicia to return to him, but Antipater, who was in charge of the distribution of satrapies in Triparadis, preferred to keep Philoxenes (Diod. XVIII.39.6).

The situation was similar with Archon, the satrap of Babylonia (Schober, 1981, p. 38-39; Heckel, 2006, p. 43). He was also appointed a satrap under Alexander and was in league with Perdiccas ' opponent, this time Ptolemy. To overthrow the Archon, Perdiccas organized a military operation led by Dokim. He managed to defeat the Archon, who was killed in the confrontation, and take his place (FGHist. 156, F. 10.3). In Triparadis, Dokimus was replaced by Seleucus as an adherent of Perdiccas (Diod. XVIII.39.6).

Lydia's satrap, Menander, who had been a satrap under Alexander, was confirmed in 323 (Diod. XVIII.3.1; Just. XIII. 4. 15). However, in 321 he was removed from his post by Perdiccas, who placed Alexander's sister Cleopatra in his place (FGHist. 156, F. 10.7). But in Triparadis, Antipater decided not to return Lydia to Menander, a supporter of Antigonus, and handed her over to Clitus the White.

It is noteworthy that in Triparadis, out of 22 satraps, 10 received new appointments. However, this is not so much a reflection of a purposeful policy as an indicative division of the diadochi into two camps: supporters and opponents of Perdiccas and Eumenes. Nevertheless, the distribution of satrapies in Triparadis, as in Babylon, was not random. If in the first case it was Perdiccas who tried to win over the satraps, then in the second case the struggle was between Antipater and Antigonus. Probably, Antipater, who had great authority and influence, could not ignore the increased power of Antigonus, who was charged with destroying the supporters of Perdiccas and, above all, Eumenes [Errington, 1970, p.68-69; Bosworth, 2002, p. 162]. Antipater tried to neutralize his influence, including through the placement of the necessary satraps. Thus, in 320, the assassins of Perdiccas, Seleucus and Antigenus, were appointed satraps. The satrapy was given to Arridaeus, who, after the death of Perdiccas, together with Pytho, was briefly regent. Pythonus himself was given control of the entire Mussel.

Thus, one of the features of Perdiccas ' policy in 323-320 AD. there was an attempt to replace some of the old satraps with new, more loyal representatives. In part, it was this struggle with the satraps that led to tragic consequences for Perdiccas. The distribution of satrapies was extremely important for those diadochi who were trying to unite the entire empire of Alexander under their rule. At the same time, the role of the satraps themselves - minor diadochs - in these conditions seems to be very significant. Attempts to subdue or influence the satraps by some of the great diadochi continued after the Triparadis meeting. The next round of this struggle was connected with the confrontation between Eumenes and Antigonus, during which two groups of supporters of each of the generals stood out. After defeating Eumenes in 316, Antigonus carried out the last redistribution of satrapies in the territory under his control. However, the focus of the new Diadoch war was shifted to the Eastern Mediterranean region, and most of the lesser Diadochs who by then had occupied the posts of satraps of the eastern regions lost their political influence. The rule of Seleucus I established in the region in 312-305 was the end of the history of the lesser Diadochi.

list of literature

Koshelenko G. A. Revolt of the Greeks in Bactria and Sogdiana 323 BC and some aspects of Greek political thought of the IV century BC / / Vestnik drevnoi istorii. 1972. N 1.

Koshelenko G. A., Gaibov V. A. Destinies of satraps of the East. The Epoch of Alexander the Great / / Problems of History, Philology, and Culture. Issue XVII. Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 2007.

page 78
Koshelenko G. A., Gaibov V. A. Hellenistic East: Colonization of the upper satrapies (scales, dynamics, character). Problemy istorii, filologii, kul'tury [Problems of History, Philology, and Culture]. 2014. N 2.

Smirnov S. V. Gieronim iz Kardii o Seleukom I [Hieronymus of Cardia on Seleucus I] / / Politika, ideologiya, istoriopisis v rimsko-hellenisticheskom mire / Ed. by O. L. Gabelko. Kazan, 2009.

Smirnov S. V. Pifon, Seleucus, and the tradition of Jerome of Cardia. Issue No. 14. St. Petersburg, 2014.

Smirnov S. V. The Babylonian "list of Satrapies": problems of sources. Issue 15. St. Petersburg, 2015 (in print).

Berve H. Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Munchen, 1926.

Bosworth B. The Legacy of Alexander. Oxford, 2002.

Errington R.M. From Babylon to Triparadcisos: 323-320 B.C. // Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. 90. 1970.

Heekel W. The Marshals of Alexander's Empire. L.-N.Y., 1992.

Heekel W. Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire. Oxford, 2006.

Klinkott H. Die Satrapienregister der Alexander- und Diadochenzeit. (Historia: Einzelschritten; H. 145). Stuttgart, 2000.

Meeus A. The Power Struggle of the Diadochoi in Babylon 323 BC // Ancient Society. 2008. Vol. 38.

Meeus A. Confusing Aim and Result? Hindsight and the Disintegration of Alexander the Great's Empire // Hindsight in Greek and Roman History / Ed. by A. Powell. Swansea, 2013.

Meeus A. The Territorial Ambitions of Ptolemy I // The Age of Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic-World / Ed. by H. Hauben, A. Meeus. Peeters, 2014.

Rathmann M. Perdikkas zwischen 323 und 320: Nachlassverwalter des Alexanderreiches oder Autokrat? Wien, 2005.

Rosen K. Die Rcichsordnung von Babylon (323 v. Chr.) // Acta Classica. Vol. 6. 1967.

Seibert J. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios' I. Munchen, 1969.

Schober L. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Babyloniens und der Oberem Satrapien von 323-303 v. Chr. Frankfurt am Main-Bern, 1981.

Wheatlcy P. The Diadochi, or Successors to Alexander // Alexander the Great: A New History / Ed. By W. Heckel and L.A. Tritle. Oxford, 2009.

page 79

Permanent link to this publication: