Olympias

Molossian wife of Philip II of Macedonia and mother of Alexander the Great

• Born: c. 375 b.c.e.
• Birthplace: Molossis, Epirus (now in Greece)
• Died: 316 b.c.e.
• Place of death: Macedonia (now in Greece)

During the reign of Alexander the Great, Olympias wielded political influence and authority in Macedonia and Greece. After Alexander’s death, she died attempting to ensure the throne for his son.

Early Life

Most information about Olympias (oh-LIHM-pee-ahs) comes from narratives of the reigns of her husband, son, and grandson and from Plutarch’s often hostile writings, but a few relevant inscriptions survive. All literary sources reflect southern Greek prejudice against political women as well as the propaganda wars of the period after the death of Alexander.

The daughter of Neoptolemus, king of the Molossians, Olympias belonged to a dynasty that claimed descent from Achilles. She had two siblings: a sister and a brother, Alexander, later ruler of the Molossians and husband of Olympias’s daughter. Olympias may have been known by other names at various periods in her life.

Women in the Molossian-Epirote culture had more rights than elsewhere in the Hellenic world. The sources portray Olympias as fond of religion, particularly Dionysiac and other mystery cults. In this, she resembled women of the Hellenic and Hellenized world in general, much of the Macedonian and northern Greek population, and her own son. Indeed, Olympias and Philip II, king of the Macedonians, met at the mysteries of Samothrace. Their marriage, c. 357 b.c.e., was probably not a love match but the result of an alliance between Olympias’s uncle Arybbas, who had succeeded her father as king, and Philip.

Life’s Work

Olympias and Philip had two children: Alexander III (the Great), born in 356 b.c.e., and Cleopatra, born soon after. Philip fathered another son, Arrhidaeus, but he suffered from some mental disability that meant that he was unable to rule in his own right. By Alexander’s early teens, Philip was treating him like an heir. Tradition says that Alexander and his mother were close and implies that he and his father were not. In the polygamous Macedonian court, mothers functioned as advocates for their sons’ succession. Her son’s status made Olympias the most prominent of Philip’s seven wives, but there is little evidence of the nature of her relationship with her husband and no proof that she exerted influence over him.

Philip’s last marriage dramatically affected his public relationship with Olympias as well as Olympias’s status. It occurred soon after the victory at Chaeronea in 338 b.c.e. that brought him domination of the Greek peninsula. Whatever Philip’s motivation for this marriage, Alexander perceived a threat to his own status when the bride’s guardian proposed a toast that brought into question Alexander’s legitimacy as heir to the throne. Alexander, taking his mother with him, went into exile. When the public quarrel between father and son was settled, Alexander returned to court, possibly with Olympias.

Philip arranged a marriage between Olympias’s daughter and Olympias’s brother and turned the wedding into an international event. Some have seen this marriage as an indication that Olympias was being sidestepped, but others have seen it as part of the formal reconciliation between father and son, intended to reaffirm the status and importance of Alexander’s Molossian heritage.

A Macedonian with a personal grievance assassinated Philip II at the wedding festivities in 336. Speculation in ancient (and modern) times assigned ultimate responsibility to Olympias or Alexander. Olympias and her son undeniably benefited by Philip’s death. Others also benefited from his demise, however, some of whom ran less risk by participating in an assassination plot than did either Olympias or Alexander.

After the death of Philip, Alexander eliminated a number of his enemies, among them the guardian of Philip’s last bride. At this time, though the evidence is poor, Olympias probably had Philip’s last wife murdered, along with an infant she had born Philip. Olympias’s motivation was similar to that behind Alexander’s crimes: removal of dynastic rivals and revenge.

During her son’s reign, Olympias played a more public role than she had in Philip’s. Alexander’s absence beginning in 334 meant that the only members of the dynasty not in Asia were women, and, of these, his mother remained the most prominent. In the cutthroat world of Macedonian power politics, mother and son had more reason to trust each other than any one else. Alexander and Olympias wrote frequently, and he sent booty home to her, from which she made splendid dedications to the gods.

Olympias also played a role in affairs of state, whether authorized by her son or opportunistic. She left Macedonia for her Molossian homeland and may have shared the regency of Molossia and Epirus with her now-widowed daughter, Cleopatra. Inscriptions suggest that, as early as 333-332, Olympias and her daughter functioned as heads of state. Contemporary literary evidence also indicates that Olympias had a position of some authority during her son’s reign, although whether her power was based in Macedonia or Molossia or both is not certain.

Plutarch asserted that Olympias and Cleopatra formed a faction against Antipater, the general Alexander had left in military charge of Macedonian affairs, and that they shared Alexander’s rule, Cleopatra taking Macedonia and Olympias Epirus. Olympias tried to influence her son’s policy by means of epistolary attacks on Alexander’s courtiers. She warned her son against those she considered dangerous to his interests. While most of these rivalries appear petty, typical of the competitive Macedonian court, her rivalry with Antipater had greater significance. Although Plutarch claimed Alexander was unaffected by her charges, her efforts against Antipater contributed to his demotion. Alexander ultimately came to interpret Antipater’s actions, rightly or wrongly, as his mother did.

Although Olympias was remote from the fray precipitated by Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., her life was now imperiled. She believed, probably wrongly, that Antipater and his sons were responsible for Alexander’s death. Though her infant grandson Alexander IV and the limited Arrhidaeus were now nominally co-kings, in reality Alexander’s generals (the Diadochi) struggled over his empire. Because her existence benefited none of the Diadochi and her demise might have pleased a number of them, for the first time she faced physical danger. Therefore, she sought support she had not previously deemed necessary. Probably at her bidding, Aeacides, Olympias’s nephew, returned from exile and became ruler of the Molossians but consistently acted in her interests.

She also searched for a husband for her long-widowed daughter, Cleopatra. Ultimately, Olympias sent Cleopatra to Sardis (where most of the Macedonian army, Perdiccas the regent, and the kings were located) in the hope that she would marry Perdiccas, but this plan failed, and Cleopatra was effectively imprisoned in Sardis. Olympias, lacking control of either her daughter or grandson, was stymied, although still safe enough in Epirus.

Her opportunity for renewed power came with the death of Antipater in 319 and his replacement as regent by Polyperchon. Polyperchon asked Olympias to return to Macedonia, take over responsibility for her grandson, and accept some more general public role. Olympias refused his offer at least once, possibly twice: She distrusted her grandson’s guardians, whom she believed wanted the rule for themselves. Nonetheless, Olympias changed her mind in the fall of 317 b.c.e. Arrhidaeus’s wife (and Philip II’s granddaughter) Adea Eurydice had formed an alliance with Antipater’s son, Cassander, but the fundamental cause of Olympias’s reversal was her conviction that the dual kingship created in 323—kings from different branches of the royal family that had been rivals for more than a generation—must be replaced by a return to unified monarchy.

Naturally, she hoped Alexander IV would become that single ruler, though, from the moment she heard of her son’s death and the birth of Alexander IV, she must have known that the chances of her grandson surviving long enough to be more than a figurehead were slender and that if she became his advocate, she would lose what security her cousin’s protection offered. Her caution in embracing the project indicates that she saw the dangers in becoming her grandson’s supporter, yet she risked and lost her life in an attempt to ensure his sole rule.

Olympias returned to Macedonia with her grandson and mixed forces led by her nephew Aeacides and Polyperchon. Adea Eurydice and her husband met them on the Macedonian border, but their army immediately went over to Olympias, and Adea Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus were captured. Olympias executed them, killed one brother of Cassander, dishonored the tomb of another, and brought about the deaths of a hundred supporters of Cassander. Olympias’s actions caused some Macedonians to dislike her, but they were not unique; many of the Diadochi were similarly brutal. The deaths of Adea Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus were considered a necessity. Left alive, Philip Arrhidaeus might become the tool of any faction. Adea Eurydice presented a threat because of her control of her husband but also because she had the potential to produce a child who was a descendant of Philip II as well as the son of one of Alexander’s generals.

Olympias’s slaughter of Cassander’s supporters is more problematic. Though these deaths were probably intended as preemptive strikes, they alienated some public opinion and failed to eliminate opposition. Nonetheless, even if these murders constituted a partial political misjudgment, Olympias, her forces, and her allies, failed primarily because a series of military defeats eroded their support. Olympias either falsely believed that she herself had military skills sufficient to handle the situation or put her trust in men and in plans that made no sense.

When Olympias surrendered to Cassander on a (false) promise of personal safety, her fate was sealed. Had she succeeded in appearing at her own trial, as she wished, she might have survived. It proved difficult to find someone to kill Olympias (confirming that her failures were primarily military not political), but Cassander finally did so. She continued to scheme and plot to the end and faced death with resolve. With Olympias eliminated, Cassander took over rule of Macedonia and eventually murdered Alexander IV, but his dynasty failed to survive.

Significance

In an era short on adult or competent royal males, Olympias used her skills as a succession advocate to make herself more powerful than any previous Macedonian royal woman, but, after the death of Alexander, she lacked the stable military base necessary to ensure the Macedonian throne for her descendants.

Bibliography

Blackwell, Christopher W. In the Absence of Alexander: Harpalus and the Failure of Macedonian Authority. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Examines Olympias’s pivotal role in Greek events during Alexander’s absence.

Borza, E. N. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990. Provides background on Macedonian monarchy and the cultural context of the Macedonian court.

Carney, Elizabeth D. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. Discusses the role of women in Macedonian monarchy and provides biographies.

Greenwalt, W. S. “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia.” Arethusa 22 (1989): 19-45. Analyzes the dynamic between polygamy and succession in Macedonia.