Best King of the Diadochi

[Lemont Elwood]

I'm considering writing an espionage/adventure story set back in the period of the Diadochi, but I don't know much about the setting and am just beginning some cursory research. The story's premise is that a banished Greek philosopher ends up falling into the service of one of the Diadochi, and becomes one of his spymasters/diplomats, dispatched across the Hellenistic world.

Mind you, I'm just thinking about the subject (nowhere close to actually writing anything, it's just an idea), but I was wondering: which of the Diadochi do you think best exemplified the traits of a benevolent despot/philosopher king? Mind you, this is just a relative comparison, in case all of them were awful. The choices, of course, are Cassander (Macedonia), Lysimachus (Thrace), Seleucus (Persia), and Ptolemy (Egypt).

 

[LordTempest]

Trick question. Demetrius of Bactria.

 

[diegosimeone]

Ptolemy has the most appeal I'd say.

Cassander turned into a villain killing everyone associated with Alexander and being a bad leader in general.

Seleucus and Antigonus (did you forget him?) are probably the most eventful.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

I would probably choose Ptolemy I Soter. He ordered to build the Lighthouse of Alexandria and may have been the person who originally authorized the Great Library of Alexandria as well. If you write historical fiction you may make your main character to suggest him to construct the Lighthouse of Alexandria and to authorize the Royal Library in Alexandria as well. Ptolemy I Soter will get credit on those things but in your story you can give credit to your main character.

You could also mention that Ptolemy I Soter did study with Alexander under Aristotle and that was the reason why he wanted to have philosophers in his court.

http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pe-Pu/Ptolemy-I.html

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I always liked Ptolemy most.
That said Seleucus is also very interesting.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

You filthy people are just choosing Ptolemy for the potential incest subplots.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Maybe

 

[Gil galad]

You filthy people are just choosing Ptolemy for the potential incest subplots.

I won't deny it.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Ptolemy seems particularly good given his position, too. I'd think that just from a storytelling perspective (not based on history), Seleucus is too much of a hegemon to be appealing, and Lysimachus was too small.

Ptolemy allows for Seleucus to act like a main threat (I'm assuming the Seleucid Empire was much more powerful than the others just based on their territories), with Cassander (and, depending on the time, Antigonus) sometimes serving as side threats.

(As for why a philosopher character, I figure that since philosophers in this period are basically masters of all of the sciences/humanities and rhetoric, a philosopher would have the sort of broad base of knowledge that helps a typical spy/detective protagonist. The philosopher should also be able to engage more easily with nobility.)

 

[Henry IX]

Antigonus - the last man to nearly reunite Alexander's empire and one of Alexander's best generals. Although Ptolemy is probably the closest to a philosopher king.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Ptolemy seems particularly good given his position, too. I'd think that just from a storytelling perspective (not based on history), Seleucus is too much of a hegemon to be appealing, and Lysimachus was too small.

Ptolemy allows for Seleucus to act like a main threat (I'm assuming the Seleucid Empire was much more powerful than the others just based on their territories), with Cassander (and, depending on the time, Antigonus) sometimes serving as side threats.

(As for why a philosopher character, I figure that since philosophers in this period are basically masters of all of the sciences/humanities and rhetoric, a philosopher would have the sort of broad base of knowledge that helps a typical spy/detective protagonist. The philosopher should also be able to engage more easily with nobility.)

Do you really want to put your reader into the head of a philosopher though? Why not make the philosopher's secretary or manservant your point of view character.

The Sherlock Holmes books were written from the point of view of Dr. Watson after all, because giving the reader the point of view of a mastermind is rather difficult and not as mysterious as if the mastermind character were viewed from the outside.

 

[Lord Finnish]

The Ptolemaics were the most rad of the dynasties, so Ptolemy was by definition the most rad of the diadochi. It's simple logic.

 

[Gurkhal]

I would pick Seleucus for the dramatic potential. And because I've got a soft spot for them.

And a fun part is also that if I recall, Seleucus, was the only Diadochi not to reject the eastern wife Alexander had found for them, and the two had at least three children. I think that this also could give you some potential story elements to work with as well as an additional character that the main characters can interact with, as well as giving a romantic plot you could use if you want to plaint Seleucus more favorable. In him being less of bigot than the other Macedonian generals and so on.

 

[Trin Tragula]

I bet many others know far more than me about this time and place but I always liked Antigonus myself.
However, I don’t think he fits with what you’re looking for. Ptolemy seems a better fit for that

 

[Yakman]

You filthy people are just choosing Ptolemy for the potential incest subplots.

hottest descendant.

 

[Fornadan]

You could always make Demetrius of Phaleron the main character.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrius_of_Phalerum

Otherwise it depends what sort of master you're looking for. Cassander and Ptolemy are the spiders, with the former the more sinister one.

Antigonus and Demetrius were a really dynamic duo, and also really big ups and downs in fortune.

Lysimachus and Seleucus were more of the warrior king type I should think.

 

[jamhaw]

Ptolemy is boring, everyone

Ptolemy seems particularly good given his position, too. I'd think that just from a storytelling perspective (not based on history), Seleucus is too much of a hegemon to be appealing, and Lysimachus was too small.

Ptolemy allows for Seleucus to act like a main threat (I'm assuming the Seleucid Empire was much more powerful than the others just based on their territories), with Cassander (and, depending on the time, Antigonus) sometimes serving as side threats.

(As for why a philosopher character, I figure that since philosophers in this period are basically masters of all of the sciences/humanities and rhetoric, a philosopher would have the sort of broad base of knowledge that helps a typical spy/detective protagonist. The philosopher should also be able to engage more easily with nobility.)

Philosophers are annoying - no one likes philosophers. Go with a wizard. They are more useful. Someone steals something, a wizard can find it. You have bad dreams? A wizard can fix them. A wizard is the closest thing to a Classical PI.

Did wizards wear a pileus? Is the Pontifex maximus pagan?!

 

[pirro]

As a PhD who actually is studying the Diadochs I find this thread appalling...

P.S. Eumenes of Cardia was another contender for the throne despite the Propaganda Diodorus, Nepos and Plutarch spread because of what Hyeronimus of Cardia (possibly an actual friend of Eumenes that switched sides after the debacle at Gabiene), just as Schäffer, Anson et al. have claimed for some time now. Add to this more forgotten figures like Perdiccas, who actually knew how to control the assembly at Babylon and could have come off as the victor had he defeated Ptolemy, who is, possibly, the most overrated of the lot.

 

[Trin Tragula]

As a PhD who actually is studying the Diadochs I find this thread appalling...

P.S. Eumenes of Cardia was another contender for the throne despite the Propaganda Diodorus, Nepos and Plutarch spread because of what Hyeronimus of Cardia (possibly an actual friend of Eumenes that switched sides after the debacle at Gabiene), just as Schäffer, Anson et al. have claimed for some time now. Add to this more forgotten figures like Perdiccas, who actually knew how to control the assembly at Babylon and could have come off as the victor had he defeated Ptolemy, who is, possibly, the most overrated of the lot.

If you have the time for it I would love to read more about how wrong we all are (and why).

 

[pirro]

If you have the time for it I would love to read more about how wrong we all are (and why).

Tbh I blame said authors and the Roman era. For example, Polyaenus mostly forgets about Eumenes (despite the claims made by historians such as Nepos, who praises Eumenes' dexterity and intelligence.) And Arrian's Opus Magna, and the one that has survived to our days in the best conditions, mostly deals with Alexander and Eumenes' plays a secondary role at best.

Furthermore, both Eumenes and Perdiccas lost, unlike the Antigonids or the Seleucids. Surely the well educated elites knew about them (Arrian, Trogus, Nepos...) But for a few Romans they never did because the winners where the other big players. This can be applied to Polibyus narration too. He wrote about the Antigonids (he knew a few of them) but he didn't care about the losers and, him being the prime source for many Romans, made it harder as time went on for people to remember them.

I hope I made my point. Feel free to ask for more details if you are interested.