The Year of Kings

When Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, he left behind a vast empire. Alexander, in his short military career, managed to conquer the entire Persian Empire, a feat that the Athenians and Spartans were unable to accomplish before him. Alexander controlled an area of land that comprised all of Egypt and made its way to India, stopping only at the Indus River. Alexander’s request, to leave his empire to “the strongest,” suggested no clear successor, and in saying this, it may seem that Alexander left the gate open for anyone who thought himself worthy, but in reality, there were really only three possible successors at this point. Beginning at this point in the history, one can follow a through-line that leads right from Alexander’s last words, to several strategic murders, all the way to a bizarre outcome of no less than six new kings suddenly springing up in 306 BC. This year has come to be known as “The Year of Kings.”

The fight to rule Macedonia came down to three options. The first, from the military, would have been to elect a Macedonian king—specifically Craterus. Because Craterus was in Cilicia at the time of Alexander’s death, the commanders, Meleager and Attalus insisted upon a second option, that Alexander’s brother, Arrhidaeus, hold the title. This plan of action was less than ideal, however, given Arrhidaeus’ status as a “half-wit”. Those still loyal to the fallen ruler held out hope that Alexander’s wife, Roxane, would give birth to what they hoped would be a male heir. Ptolemy, however, seeing no one with the ability to stop him, made a move for the title and solved the issue with the murder of both Attalus and Meleager. With no one to contest him at this point, Ptolemy became the new leader of Macedonia.

Without Alexander around to unite his people, a basic anarchy was quickly spreading as different individuals attempted to gain control over different areas. This went on for several years until 311 BC when a peace treaty was agreed among all of the generals. This treaty left Seleucus in control of Mesopotamia, and as the text claims, when it came to Antigonus and his son, Demetrius, who had their eyes on the empire, “their sails were trimmed.” While there were plenty of people who desired to rule all of Alexander’s empire, the treaty left it a not too easy task.

Even though the treaty did make it more difficult to fight for the empire, its ambiguity also made making a play for the title possible. The treaty was unclear as to whether all of the areas conquered by Alexander were to be united with Alexander IV as their collective ruler or if each area was to be ruled independently of the others by one of Alexander’s Diadochi. Cassander, like Ptolemy did a few years’ prior, answered the debate with a double murder—that of Roxane and her son, Alexander, who would soon reach maturity and thus become competition for the seat. Now, however, with Alexander the Great’s successor out of the way, Antigonus could, one more time, attempt to control the entire empire. And, with these developments, Alexander’s successors were again at war.

It is important to note, that up until at least this point, not one man has referred to himself as “king.” Each ruler, in charge of his own bit of land, stayed away from the title “king” for at least four years. Part of the reason was to be sure they were not inviting others to challenge them for the title. Additionally, they wanted to be sure that none of the Macedonian soldiers who still felt loyal to the fallen Alexander did not feel that the new rulers were “dancing on the graves of the Argeads.” This caution played a major role in the sudden inundation of “kings” that would follow.

Where many successors were reticent to appear too eager to fill Alexander’s shoes, Antigonus the One-Eyed, was not, and he fearlessly went to war with several other successors in 306 and 307 BC. During one such campaign, Antigonus’ son, Demetrius, forced Cassander to relinquish control of Athens, helping to bolster confidence in his and father’s ability to lead. Apparently, when the people began to hail Antigonus as king, he declined the title. The following year, Antigonus defeated Ptolemy’s son in a battle on the sea which left him and his son in control of the Aegean, Ionia, Asia Minor, Syria, and the entire Mediterranean Sea. At this point, Antigonus is no longer shied away from being called king. In fact, he named both himself and his son king.

Once Antigonus and Demetrius declared themselves kings, it became apparent that the other successors needed to take some sort of action. To do nothing would ostensibly be admitting control of their lands to Antigonus and Demetrius. If the father and son were kings, and the other successors were not, then that would give Antigonus and Demetrius power over the other leaders, and by extension, their land. This was obviously unacceptable. And so, within a year and a half, each successor had been named king.

The question of what, exactly, each successor was king of was a serious issue. Was each king claiming to be the ruler of his own specific kingdom? Or were they all asserting the rule over Macedonia and all of the lands conquered in its name? Most tended to agree that the title stretched only so far as each successor’s respective kingdom, and in this way, avoided more serious threats to their own land. By 305 BC, King Antigonus, King Demetrius, King Ptolemy, King Seleucus, King Lysimachus, and King Cassander all ruled over their new kingdoms, and in this somewhat strange line of events, 306 BC became known as “The Year of Kings.”

This “Year of Kings” is historically and culturally significant for a myriad of reasons. To begin with, the fact that no one attempted to gain control of these areas until after Alexander died speaks to the level of influence he had over his people. On the other hand, the lengths others went to in order to attempt to gain control of his empire once he was gone (e.g., the murder of his commanders, followed some time later by the murders of his wife and son), also speaks to how much others desired what he gained. Alexander had done the hard work of conquering the lands, and it was up to his successors to keep them under Greek rule. The scramble that ensued after his death had much to do with the fact that the new kings did not want to have to fight all over again for land they had already won with Alexander in command. Allowing one successor to take what another had earned would go against any philosophy of an individual who marched in Alexander’s army. This portion of world history shows just how much of an impact the actions of one man can have on many more. Not merely in the case of Alexander, but also of Ptolemy, whose murder of the commanders led to his gaining control of Macedonia, and the domino effect that lead to “The Year of Kings."