How Did Ptolemy I Come to Adopt the Title of King after Alexander the Great's Death - Essay Example

It was in 323 that Alexander died (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 19). After his death, Ptolemy, his favorite general was entrusted with the governance ofEgypt, one of the four “supersatrapies” that were divided among Macedonian leaders after Alexander’s death (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 19). Arrian (1907) had reported in his account of Alexander’s life and death that in his death bed, when asked to whom the kingdom should be entrusted, Alexander was supposed to have said, “to the best” (421). By these words, Alexander meant who to be his predecessor is a million dollar question very difficult to answer. Though Ptolemy became known to history initially as the “friend, confidant, and later general of Alexander” and later as his predecessor, there was no indication from any historical accounts that Alexander wanted Ptolemy to be his successor (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 15). But it has been clear from historical documents that Ptolemy was close to Alexander (Worthington, 2003, p.137). It was by the year, 330 that Ptolemy “succeeded Demetrius” and became the aide-in-hand of Ptolemy as he was already a senior leader in the “Macedonian army” (Ellis, 1994, p.10). Green (1990) has observed, “Ptolemy was one of the few to realize that limiting his ambition would actually get him farther in the long run” (p.9). But once Alexander died, he was not sitting idle as well. After taking over the responsibility of governance of Egypt, the first thing he did was to attack and conquer “the rich North African State of Cyrenaica” without attaining any permission from Perdiccas (Green, 1990, p.13). On the political front, Ptolemy is known for the first ever application in history “of a philosophy of monarchic power” once he succeeded Alexander as the king (15). But later historians (eg:- Bosworth, 1976) have also pointed out that Ptolemy manipulated the facts in his history of Alexander, a text from which supposedly the most authentic historian of Alexander, Arrian, drew his facts to retell the story (117). It has been observed that Ptolemy exaggerated his own achievements and downplayed his rivals’ ones in this text (Bosworth, 1976, 117). And the result was that whatever history that exists about Alexander, incorporates within it, the exaggerated self of Ptolemy also. Ptolemy himself had told the story of Alexander but this book is now lost somewhere in the quagmire of history (Ellis, 1994, 7). Hence, it is through the work of Arrian (1907), that now we know the story of Alexander, of course as told by Ptolemy (Ellis, 1994, 7). And Arrian (1907) has took extra caution not to limit his biographical book on Alexander to the accounts of Ptolemy alone and instead has taken details from Callisthenes, the official historian” of Alexander (as cited in Worthington, 2003, p.136). After Alexander’s death, there was ambiguity about who should succeed him to the throne and the first meeting of the leaders of the society held in Babylon almost ended as a civil war resulting from the conflict regarding who should inherit the throne (Green, 1990, 7). For a brief period of time, Arrhidaios became the king of consensus, Perdiccas, the senior commander of Alexander assumed a regent-like position, and Ptolemy was appointed as the ruler of Egypt (Green, 1990, 3-9). But Prediccas became powerful and ambitious; soon an anti-Prediccas group consolidated itself into rebellion; and Ptolemy supported them (Green, 1990, 3-10). Meanwhile Ptolomy also seized into his possession, the body of Alexander, which was put on display in a golden coffin in Alexandria, thereby giving Ptolemy an indirect legitimization of his claim to the throne (Green, 1990, 13). Dramatic events had unfolded in the process of Ptolomy acquiring the coffin of Alexander. He intercepted the funeral procession of Alexander in Syria and took Alexander’s body into his possession (Billows, 1995, 37). The motive of Ptolemy in taking the possession of Alexander’s body into his hands, has been discussed from different perspectives to find out what exactly led Ptolemy to do this. One argument has been that Ptolemy wanted to neutralise the most powerful “symbol of the empire’s unity”, that is, the body of Alexander (Heckel, 2009, 243). Another notion has been that Ptolemy wanted to legitimise his claim to the throne of the empire (Heckel, 2009, 243). According to Macedonian custom, to become the king, one “has to “bury […] [the] predecessor” (Green, 1990, p.13). Whatever the reason, it was evident that as Ptolemy went ahead with his “games and sacrifices” for the dead Alexander, his public acceptance grew and many soldiers joined his team (Heckel, 2009, p.243). Initially burying the body in Memphis and later taking it out again to be displayed in Alexandria, Ptolemy even defied the death wish of Alexander himself, who wanted to be buried in Siwah Oasis (Green, 1990, p.13). This is why Ptolemy has been considered as “a true master of propaganda” (Heckel, 2009, p.245). And it was in addition to these self-promoting steps, that Ptolemy sat down to write the life story of Alexander, which also indirectly showed the readers how close Ptolemy was to Alexander and how skilled and talented Ptolemy was (Heckel, 2009, p.245). It is also seen that in this book on Alexander, Ptolemy even included “a fake Alexander testament” that said that Ptolemy was the one and only true follower of Alexander (Heckel, 2009, p.245). Ptolemy is also supposed to have tried to enhance his claim for the throne through marrying Alexander’s sister, Cleaopatra (Heckel, 2009, p.245). Soon after Ptolomy started his military invasion outside his ‘satrapa’, Prediccas was killed by his own officers (Green, 1990, 19). Next came the attempt of Antigonus to become the king and that of Ptolemy to defeat him (Green, 1990, 26). There was a true in 311 but soon after that both Antigonus and Ptolemy proclaimed themselves each to be king (Green, 1990, 31). In Antigonus’ attempt to exercise control over the seas, the Island of Rhodes was attacked and it was Ptolomy who assisted Rhodeans in resisting Antigonus’ military attacks (Green, 1990, 33). In gratitude to this assistance, it was Rhodeans who are supposed to have called Ptolomy, ‘Soter’, meaning the saviour (Green, 1990, 33). They also are considered as the initiators of a new “cult of Ptolemy the Saviour” (Green, 1990, 33). But there is also difference of opinion among historians about the legitimacy of this piece of information. It has been argued that it was Ptolemy II, son of Ptolemy I who proclaimed his father as the saviour, to glorify him (Hazzard, 2000, 5). The earliest historically known document having on it the term, Ptolomy the Saviour, had been the silver “tetradrachms”, or coins, issued by Ptolemy II (Hazzard, 2000, 5). Meanwhile the Greek and Semitic inscriptions that were made after the issuance of these coins contain in them many references to Ptolemy I, are never once seen to have referring to him as Saviour (Hazzard, 2000, 5). It is also noticeable that not one single document exist from during the first 22 years’ ruling period of Ptolemy II, that mentions his father as Saviour (Hazzard, 2000, 6). The wealth of Egypt as a nation and the backing Ptolemy got through his marriages to Antipater’s daughters, made him further powerful in his fight against other Macedonian leaders (Green, 1990, p.14). Ptolemy was the first Macedonian monarch who ruled Egypt from Alexandria (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 15). His was also the “Egypt’s last ruling dynasty of ancient times” (Manning, 2010, 1). Ptolemy has been described in history as a “self-made man” because he hailed from the humble premises of “Macedonian minor nobility” (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 15, 16). Another description of Ptolemy has stated that “he was not a mercurial figure like Alexander, or Demetrius Poliorcetes, but rather a cautious temperate man of few whims who had full control of his emotions and few illusions about his exalted state” (Ellis, 1994, p.10). The vast yet highly unorganized territory of a kingdom that was left behind by Alexander when he died, was left to Ptolemy to be explored, conquered and properly controlled (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 16). It was from the beginning of the Asian invasion of Alexander that Ptolemy became one of Alexander’s most important aides (Bingen and Bagnall, 2007, 16). Ellis (1994) has opined that no evidence in history is present to indicate that “Ptolemy ever considered making a bid to succeed Alexander as king of the entire far-flung empire, which stretched from Macedonia to India” (p.19). Ellis (1004) has also pointed to the evidences that suggest that Ptolomy was happy to be the ruler of Egypt alone (19). But contrary to this assumption, evidences suggest that the very act of seizing the body of Alexander by Ptolomy could be seen as a reflection of his ambition to become the successor of Alexander (Billows, 1995, 38). And it was a fact that Ptolemy had plenty of “wealth, men and territory” as the ruler of Egypt (Wallis and King, 1856, 388). Ptolemy was also a man of literary interests and famous for establishing the library of Alexandria and “a college of learned men in Alexandria” (Wallis and King, 1856, 388). His multi-faceted personality was anchored in sober practicality and this was what made him eligible for throne of king finally. The personality of Ptolemy Soter was crucial in the progress of his rise as a king. It was through promoting foreign trade that he made Alexiandria, his capital, a flourishing economic hub (Hough, 1839, 18). He knew the importance of Alexandria as a commercial central point from where trade with India and similar nations could be pursued easily (Hough, 1839, 18). This was why he chose Egypt when after death of Alexander, his empire was split into four parts (Hough, 1839, 18). Ptolemy chose Egypt also because as a general in the Alexander’s Asian campaigns, he had acquired some general knowledge about the region and hence had the confidence to manage it well (Ellis, 1994, p.5). When, after Perdiccas’ death Eumenes took over the command of the empire, and then after defeating Eumenes, Antigonus became the ruler of the entire empire, Ptolemy remained active in forging alliances and fighting some others (Green, 1990, p.21). Soon came the time for Ptolemy of direct confrontation with Antigonus and then a truce was affected in which Ptolemy for the time being approved of the supremacy of Antigonus in Asia but the fight between the “for the control of the Mediterranian” was not to end there (Green, 1990, p.27, p.29). The warfare ended only when Antigonus was defeated and removed from the throne (Gree, 1990, p.35). But even then nobody was able to command the entire empire that was under Alexander though Ptolemy emerged as a powerful king (Green, 1990, p.35). When Ptolemy was injured in the Indian campaign campaign of Alexander, it is said, Alexander himself went to the tent of Ptolemy with a bed and stayed there to take care of him (Ellis, 1994, p.12). This incident is reflective of the bonding both men felt for each other, and this could have made Ptolemy think that it was he himself who could make complete the unfinished tasks that Alexander left behind. In this attempt, Ptolemy went on fighting with all his “strong, ambitious rivals” as he was one among the typical “ambitious”, patriotic and valiant heroes of Greek history (Green, 1990, p.17). To judge Ptolemy from the frame work of the present value system would be a mistake. The acts of Ptolemy and the controversial aspects of them could be explained only by understanding deeply the intriguing the socio-political underpinnings of the Hellenistic period in its totality. . References Arrian, 1907. Anabasis of Alexander, trans. A. G. Roos, Leipzig. Billows, R.A. 1995. Kings and colonists: aspects of Macedonian imperialism, BRILL, Leiden. Bingen, J. and Bagnall, 2007. Hellenistic Egypt: monarchy, society, economy, culture, University of California Press, California. Bosworth, A. B. 1976. ‘Errors In Arrian’, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 26, no.1, pp.117-139. Ellis, W. M. 1994. Ptolemy of Egypt, Routledge, London. Green, P. 1990. Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic age, University of California Press, California. Hazzard, R.A. 2000. Imagination of a monarchy: studies in Ptolemaic propaganda, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Heckel, W. (2009) Alexander the Great: a new history, Wiley & Blackwell, London. Hough, J. 1839. The history of Christianity in India: from the commencement of the Christian era, Volume 1, R.B. Seeley and W. Burnside, London. Manning, J. G. 2010. The last Pharaohs: Egypt under the Ptolemies 305-30BC, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Wallis, J. and King, D. 1856. The British millennial harbinger, John Wallis, London. Worthington, I. 2003. Alexander the great: a reader, Routledge, London. Read More