40 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2019choice since the Macedonians would never en-
dure being ruled by a woman. Not long after, Alex-
ander ordered Antipater to turn his position over
and meet him in Babylon. When, months later in
June 323, Alexander died in Babylon, Antipater
was still in his old position, though several of his
sons, including Alexander’s cupbearer, were with
Alexander. His sudden death made many, includ-
ing Olympias, suspect that Antipater’s family had
poisoned him. Historians doubt that Alexander
was murdered, but as with the death of Philip,
little can be certain.Empire in Chaos
The death of her son left Olympias in a precari-
ous position. Alexander left behind no obvi-
ous heir. It was decided that the unborn child
of Roxanne, one of Alexander’s wives, would
co-rule with Alexander’s half brother, the men-
tally disabled Philip III Arrhidaeus, and a regentwould be appointed. Roxanne gave birth to a boy,
Alexander IV, but succession would be anything
but smooth.
Alexander’s generals, “the successors,” fought
fiercely among themselves to establish control
over the empire. They broke into competing fac-
tions, each one controlling a different region.
Antipater managed to hold on to Macedonia,
and Olympias kept a safe distance in Molossia.
Without Alexander, Olympias needed military
protection from her family. Aeacides, Olym-
pias’s nephew, seems to have become co-king
with Alexander IV, Olympias’s young grandson,
around this time.
Antipater died in 319, and the new regent,
Polyperchon, urged Olympias to return to Mace-
donia to care for her grandson Alexander IV.
Antipater had passed over his own son, Cas-
sander, and named Polyperchon as his succes-
sor. The two men were at odds, and PolyperchonTHE BODY OF OLYMPIAS FOLLOWING HER EXECUTION.
15TH-CENTURY MINIATURE. BODLEIAN LIBRARY,
OXFORD, ENGLANDSNAKE CHARMER
AND POISONER?
C
LASSICAL AUTHORS wrote
about Olympias in the
context of her famous son
rather than as a figure in
her own right. Among the best known
of these histories is Plutarch’s second-
century biography of Alexander,
which typifies the distaste that men
of the period held for women who
stepped outside their roles as moth-
ers and wives. Olympias stirs up dis-
content in Philip’s household, Plutarch
wrote, because she was “a jealous and
sullen woman.” His portrayal goes
beyond character traits: Olympias
is spiritually dangerous. When she
participates in the Orphic mysteries—
rituals associated with the mythologi-cal figure of Orpheus—she “affected
these divine possessions more zeal-
ously than other women, and carried
out these divine inspirations in wilder
fashion, used to provide the revelling
companies with great tame serpents.”
These snakes would poke their heads
from the garlands of the women, “thus
terrifying the men.” Plutarch’s Olym-
pias is a woman whom men have rea-
son to fear. Alexander’s half brother
Arrhidaeus—a dynastic rival to Alex-
ander and Olympias—was mentally
deficient. “As a boy he displayed a
gifted and noble disposition: but af-
terwards Olympias gave him drugs
which injured his body and ruined his
mind.” Plutarch also believed that, al-
though Olympias did not kill Philip II,
she helped stir up his assassin. Mod-
ern historians concede that Olympias
did kill Philip’s new bride, but they rec-
ognize the act was no more ruthlessly
pragmatic than those committed by
the men around her, including her son.ART ARCHIVE