The years following the death of Alexander the Great were marked by intense power struggles and political intrigue within the Macedonian Empire. Among the key figures navigating this turbulent period was Cassander, the son of Antipater, a powerful regent whose influence shaped the fate of Macedonia and the wider Hellenistic world. This article explores the complex interplay of personalities, alliances, and betrayals during Cassander’s formative years, focusing on the crucial role of his father Antipater and the volatile relationships with Olympias and Eurydice.

The Macedonian Power Vacuum after Alexander the Great

When Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, his vast empire, stretching from Greece to India, was left without a clear successor. The Macedonian homeland itself became a hotbed of political contention as various factions vied for control. Antipater, a seasoned general and trusted regent during Alexander’s campaigns, returned to Macedonia with considerable prestige and military strength. However, his authority was far from uncontested.

Two of Antipater’s most formidable adversaries were Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and Eurydice, the ambitious wife of Philip III Arrhidaeus . Both women were known for their fiery temperaments and political ambitions, and they viewed Antipater as a direct threat to their power.

Olympias: The Queen Mother’s Defiance and Vendettas

Olympias resided in Epirus, a region in western Greece, and was reluctant to return to Macedonia, where she would be subordinate to Antipater’s authority. Her animosity towards Antipater was deep-seated, fueled partly by his political maneuvers that had undermined her influence.

One significant point of contention was Antipater’s strategic marriage alliance: he orchestrated the marriage of Perdiccas, one of Alexander’s top generals and a rival to Olympias, to his own daughter Nicaea. This alliance disrupted Olympias’s plans to strengthen her own position through marriage arrangements. Even after the deaths of Perdiccas and Nicaea, Olympias remained unforgiving, harboring a grudge against Antipater that would have lasting consequences.

Eurydice: The Queen with Military Prowess and Political Ambition

Eurydice was an extraordinary figure in Macedonian history. Raised by her mother, Cynane, who trained her in military skills typically reserved for men, Eurydice was skilled in archery, spear-throwing, and even cavalry command. Her marriage to Philip III Arrhidaeus gave her the title of queen, and she believed her authority should surpass that of any military commander or regent.

Her assertiveness was evident during the campaign to Egypt, where Perdiccas found her difficult to control. After Perdiccas’s death, Eurydice’s arrogance grew, and she frequently clashed with generals such as Peithon, vehemently opposing Antipater’s regency. Her boldness was both a political asset and a source of instability.

The Conference at Triparadisus: Antipater’s Ascendancy and Eurydice’s Opposition

In 321 BC, a critical conference was held at Triparadisus in Syria, where the Macedonian generals and leaders convened to reorganize the empire’s administration after Perdiccas’s assassination. Antipater, leading his forces through Asia Minor and joining with the Egyptian army, sought to consolidate his power as regent.

Eurydice vehemently opposed Antipater’s assumption of regency, accusing him of sowing discord among the troops. The confrontation turned heated, with Antipater calmly refuting her accusations while Eurydice’s impassioned speech incited soldiers to mutiny. The resulting chaos threatened Antipater’s life, but loyal generals rescued him from the rebellion.

Eventually, order was restored, and Antipater’s appointment as regent was confirmed. Eurydice, recognizing her inability to overthrow him, reluctantly acquiesced, though her resentment lingered. This episode exemplified the fierce struggles among Macedonian elites and the fragile nature of power during this era.

Antipater’s Decline and the Question of Succession

Despite securing regency, Antipater’s hold on power was short-lived. Upon returning to Macedonia, he fell seriously ill, weakened by age and infirmity, and soon became bedridden. Aware of his impending death, Antipater moved swiftly to arrange the succession of power.

At this juncture, it is important to recall Craterus, a respected Macedonian general returning from Asia shortly after Alexander’s death. Accompanying him was Polyperchon, nominally Craterus’s deputy but effectively holding real military authority due to Craterus’s poor health. When Antipater and Craterus went to Asia to confront Perdiccas, Polyperchon was left as regent in Macedonia.

Antipater had a son, Cassander, who was a capable military leader. Cassander expected that, upon his father’s death, he would inherit the regency. However, Antipater surprised many by appointing Polyperchon as regent in his final will, entrusting him with supreme military command, while Cassander was relegated to managing other state affairs. This decision was influenced by Polyperchon’s administrative competence and popularity among Macedonian subjects.

Cassander’s Resentment and the Seeds of Future Conflict

Cassander was deeply aggrieved by his father’s decision. Despite his military experience and royal lineage, he was sidelined in favor of Polyperchon. This slight sowed the seeds for future discord and set the stage for a prolonged power struggle that would define the next phase of Macedonian history.

Meanwhile, Antipater’s reputation among the people was elevated by his apparent selflessness in placing the welfare of the kingdom above family interests. His choice was seen as a stabilizing move, aiming to maintain unity and order in a fractious environment.

The Legacy of Antipater and the Rise of Cassander

Antipater’s death in 319 BC left Macedonia in a precarious position. Polyperchon’s regency was challenged by Cassander, who began to build his own base of power. The rivalry between Cassander and Polyperchon soon escalated into open conflict, contributing to the Wars of the Diadochi , where Alexander’s former generals fought for control over fragments of his empire.

Cassander would eventually emerge as a central figure in Macedonian politics, ruling as king from 316 BC until his death. His reign was marked by efforts to consolidate Macedonia and Greece under his control, often using ruthless tactics. He founded the city of Thessaloniki, which remains a major urban center to this day, and fostered cultural patronage that shaped Hellenistic civilization.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Chapter in Hellenistic History

The period from 320 to 316 BC was a defining moment in the aftermath of Alexander the Great’s empire. Antipater’s return to Macedonia, his clashes with powerful royal women Olympias and Eurydice, and his final decisions regarding succession set the stage for his son Cassander’s rise to power.

These events illustrate the volatile mix of personal ambition, military prowess, and political maneuvering that characterized the early Hellenistic age. The struggle for control of Macedonia was not merely a dynastic quarrel but a critical episode that influenced the fragmentation and eventual shaping of the post-Alexandrian world.

Understanding this complex history sheds light on the nature of power, loyalty, and legacy in one of antiquity’s most dramatic eras. The figures of Antipater, Olympias, Eurydice, and Cassander remain emblematic of the fierce contest for supremacy that defined the age of Alexander’s successors.