See MORMAERS.
MACÆ, The.
See LIBYANS.
McALLISTER, Fort, The storming of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
MACALO, Battle of (1427).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
MACBETH, King of Scotland: A. D. 1039-1054.
MACCABEES, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
MACCIOWICE, Battle of (1794).
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
McCLELLAN, General George B.
Campaign in West Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Appointment to chief command.
Organization of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
{2057}
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Protracted inaction through the winter of 1861-62.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Peninsular campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
(JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
During General Pope's campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),
to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Antietam Campaign, and removal from command.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);
and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).
McCLELLAN, General George B:
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
MACDONALD, Marshal.
Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL),
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER),
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
MACDONOUGH, Commodore Thomas,
and his victory on Lake Champlain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).
McDOWELL, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
MACE, as a symbol of authority, The.
"The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the
latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would
naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of
primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of
authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon
with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures,
frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church,
forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable
that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace
as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient
religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay
corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace,
instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France
and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in
Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the
Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the
emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,'
who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned.
'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he
began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best
guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of
serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his
person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were
'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, …
who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the
conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens
d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his
duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called
sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's
body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon
imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have
given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power.
Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete
armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were
occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the
court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority.
… Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the
chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the
representative of the sovereign, being attended by his
mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated
to him."
_W. Kelly,
The Great Mace
(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 3)._
----------MACEDONIA: Start--------
MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS, The.
"The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from
the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great
perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the
loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely
destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate
cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the
foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings
of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good
system of central or pacific administration. But the
Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an
aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct
petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider
ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus,
who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as
children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting
the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early
period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization.
They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village
residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original
seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain
of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of
the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects
Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western
boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward
as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was
different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also
from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently
not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the
acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and
people. … The large and comparatively productive region
covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to
explain that increase of ascendency which they successively
acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a
late period that they became united under one government. At
first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own
prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the
southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally
distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats
somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the
Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and
became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at
Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of
the modern Vodhena."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3)._
MACEDONIA: B. C. 508.
Subjection to Persia.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 383-379.
Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy by Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
{2058}
MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.
Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.
His acquisition of Amphipolis.
See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.
Philip's conquest of Thessaly.
Intervention in the Sacred War.
Victory at Chæronea.
Mastery of Greece.
Preparation to invade Persia.
Assassination.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.
War with the Olynthian Confederacy.
Destruction of Olynthus.
See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 340.
Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.
See GREECE: B. C. 340.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.
Alexander's campaigns at the north.
Revolt and destruction of Thebes.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire
by Alexander the Great.
Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the
midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the
Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who
applied himself first, with significant energy, to the
chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern
frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE:
B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne
"when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than
his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and
admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated
attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He
had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry,
light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the
ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both
Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the
shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this
moderate force was surely as much as any commander could
handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile
country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium,
and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine,
with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the
Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek
mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river
Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle,
and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy
infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left
wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of
the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main
attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in
echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening
to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces
towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No
sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy
cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle
in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he
completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike
straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for
Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the
coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against
him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So
then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards;
he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and
stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear
safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian
fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and
had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C.
333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following
year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions.
Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the
headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great
king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus,
the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied
Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow
his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous
cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast
army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in
the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded
him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his
favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of
cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander,
who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and
occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut
off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence.
The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground,
between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room
for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high
ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was
done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the
Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the
Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large
reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with
his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops
opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the
king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had
Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of
the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete,
for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the
Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior,
and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the
phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued
about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of
his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The
greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt
prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now
strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he
boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the
battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of
conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed
many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332]
cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and
showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the
siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose,
to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all
the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a
short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated
the country as a province under his sway, with kindness
towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and
founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in
claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the
Eastern provinces of Darius' empire.
{2059}
The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C.
331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of
as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian
cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to
fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British
have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant
cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of
regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had
again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he
blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was
not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to
the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects.
For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to
occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals
of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great
cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam,
Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all
full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great
palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount
of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than
£30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more)
had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of
gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the
army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for
luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered
and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of
comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey
such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far
stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors.
And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded
himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the
Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the
unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake
Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian
passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The
narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything
in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian
as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus,
his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C.
330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself
married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus
assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius'
legitimate successor."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 2-3._
ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 49-50 (volume 6)._
_E. S. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela._
_T. A. Dodge,
Alexander,
chapters 18-31._
MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.
His invasion of India.
His death at Babylon.
His character and aims.
"After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian,
Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia
and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of
Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on
the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a
little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went
on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern
Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh
mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul.
Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh),
but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death.
Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda,
now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed
the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and
defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their
country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier
of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave
Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C.
327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer
India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager
for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus
he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their
way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself
marched westwards with the army through the deserts of
Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings,
through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B.
C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some
months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and
punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela,
Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his
way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with
his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up
the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were
displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at
Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief
officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to
break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and
to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between
the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in
the regiments which had hitherto contained none but
Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike
districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner.
Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an
expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for
ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and
carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus
they were to be put together again, and so make their way to
Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring
of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his
journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of
the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh
troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition
was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with
fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two
years old."
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Greece (Primer),
chapter 7._
"Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander
master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the
immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and
Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the
world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of
Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries
was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,
Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the
11th century.
{2060}
The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the
Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of
the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very
possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,
from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and
Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for
nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in
Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.
But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they
became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they
fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their
government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but
their ruler might himself still have remained European and
Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the
possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary
possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither
Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved
in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone
too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his
conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the
character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him
put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was
himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman
success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told
of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,
Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than
Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously
believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a
stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in
pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human
parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the
conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the
heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and
genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand
which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,
honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he
demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held
that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly
ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little
respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage
which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of
respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and
Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal
Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece
to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth
refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political
exiles. This last was an interference with the internal
government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by
Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in
other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst
failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The
unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;
no man can tell what might have been done by one of such
mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his
career. That he looked forward to still further conquests
seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,
alike those which were won and those which were still to be
won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he
to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of
Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much
warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of
Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and
eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.
Grote denies him all merit of the kind."
_E. A. Freeman,
Alexander
(Historical Essays, series 2)._
ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7)._
MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.
Revolt in Greece.
The Lamian War.
Subjugation of Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.
First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi
or Successors of Alexander.
Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of
three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the
sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son,
Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the
haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both
widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of
Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king,
Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards
united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under
the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last
proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of
Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was
quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The
provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now
divided between the generals of his army, who are known in
history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division
was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see
EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia,
Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater
and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The
remaining provinces either did not come under the new division
[see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of
notice,"
_A. H. L. Heeren,
Manual of Ancient History,
page 222._
Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected,
and it was not until two years after his death that his
remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still
shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble
Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of
Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union
which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne.
But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of
the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his
destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence
it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the
Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence
after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their
leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto
fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders
to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to
join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were
disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army
against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined
troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty.
{2061}
On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to
appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience.
Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with
Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of
Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency.
Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower
Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army
against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more
than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the
field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been
left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false
information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening
through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and
Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in
the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes
sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days
before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no
more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became
dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly
encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was
murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief
struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is
commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322].
… As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of
Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of
wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won
upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered
him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so
dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and
the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the
news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This
intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They
hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents
public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to
these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the
wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable
talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble
husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival
of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to
the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by
Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of
regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme
power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella,
and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the
crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope
with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the
open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and
maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting
offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the
support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater
produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the
meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal
friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency
to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on
account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and
ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had
not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the
powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close
alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to
strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the
strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive
Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the
Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In
the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government
of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had
murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his
forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable
to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was
forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was
immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the
widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the
youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought
and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus
consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this
marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not
venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus,
where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the
few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In
Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus,
though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the
mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the
Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to
attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields
from which they derived their name. After a long struggle,
both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides
broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage
had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the
enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and
delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the
hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes
was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished
the Argyraspides for their treachery."
_W. C. Taylor,
The Student's Manual of Ancient History,
chapter 11, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 17 (volume 2)._
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 96 (volume 12)._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
The first league and war against Antigonus.
Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.
"Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the
successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled
over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the
Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and
blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.
… He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous
Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,
yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.
Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family
had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful
Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the
Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,
and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,
and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of
whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the
throne.
{2062}
Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and
master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the
unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,
but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in
Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who
possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear
his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,
which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.
The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having
escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter
to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and
Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable
power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was
carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were
various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat
inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at
Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.
C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and
Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the
supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until
the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the
same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the
whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently
this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing
jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death
of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where
they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only
link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and
a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.
Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the
peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded
that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern
satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,
notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under
command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,
accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by
garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the
triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon
followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,
bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister
of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when
Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.
Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the
Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his
uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For
more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and
Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks
independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased
to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,
indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had
suffered so much as during the time when such great promises
were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still
possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and
fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the
Macedonian rule."
_T. T. Timayenis,
History of Greece,
part 9, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 5-6._
[Image: Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great
and his successors.]
MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
His siege of Rhodes.
The last combination against Antigonus.
His defeat and death at Ipsus.
Partition of his dominions.
After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three
years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest
Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all
the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307
B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,
with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.
Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of
'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of
ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the
Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition
to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the
Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius
the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than
ten years. … During the first period of his administration
he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have
improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with
useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to
philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered
his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for
luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost
the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians
heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;
his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city
to him, and to close his political career by retiring to
Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to
the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient
constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and
ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with
the basest and most abject flattery
See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
… Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early
in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to
Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to
its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that
ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient
naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size
of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and
so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the
strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also
conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,
Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at
Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon
Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of
revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was
from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his
name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain
attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and
grant the Rhodians peace.
See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
{2063}
Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great
progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was
besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.
Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently
defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered
Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant
flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during
which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no
great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was
recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his
assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of
the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals
was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in
which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.
Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.
Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,
whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to
Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at
Ipsus, refused to receive him."
_W. Smith,
History of Greece,
chapter 45._
"After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to
divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in
the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had
achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted
either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that
they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share
all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not
clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor
is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor
was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not
only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the
Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of
Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother
Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty
remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by
Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the
garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right
as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however
began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his
claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in
its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to
withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native
princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of
Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken
advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to
establish their authority over extensive territories in the
west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus
must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it
transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor
because it would have been more desirable that he should have
triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory
led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise
have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained
confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have
subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the
inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the
traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and
his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus
founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his
father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of
Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,
while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For
the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of
Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as
the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute
it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the
greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an
independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on
the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear
that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as
to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that
he should keep whatever he might acquire there."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 59 (volume 7)._
ALSO IN:
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 86-87 (volume 3)._
MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
Death of Casander.
Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
Murder of Seleucus.
Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.
"Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of
dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to
assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect
his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to
keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and
his preparations to reconquer his father's position.
Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,
and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as
well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected
in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,
apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.
So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family
relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions
prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to
extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would
doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of
Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious
reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both
him and his son prisoners, and released them very
chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure
kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,
so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the
poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom
he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the
battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world
arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king
Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and
friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,
another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy
(Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,
who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest
son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who
accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at
foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,
installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,
and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,
nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject
before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the
first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a
half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,
Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and
popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired
against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was
a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.
{2064}
This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the
country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince
called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with
an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a
great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It
was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last
but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,
in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.
C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of
Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic
possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son
Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of
his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he
was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his
train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army
which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for
Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet
made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were
full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus
in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in
buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:
B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to
make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their
affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change
of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were
pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from
recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos
established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,
induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against
Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her
children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the
Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and
thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered
career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was
the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first
Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,
Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant
for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and
doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the
Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by
his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,
that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where
sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.
Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the
suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.
Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in
possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the
claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a
new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a
terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over
the world."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60 (volume 8)._
MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.
Invasion by the Gauls.
Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
Strife for the throne.
Failures of Pyrrhus.
Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.
"On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
{2065}
In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
… he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."
_G. Rawlinson,
Manual of Ancient History,
pages 261-263._
ALSO IN:
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 100-102._
MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.
The Roman conquest.
Extinction of the kingdom.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.
Last relations with the Seleucid empire.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
Slavonic occupation.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.
----------MACEDONIA: End----------
MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.