Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

140 AFTER PHILIP AND ALEXANDER
Diodorus’ account of the eve of the battle of Gaza in 312 between
Demetrius, son of Antigonus, and Ptolemy and Seleucus takes this
view of commander-troops relations, but with a twist. The author
draws a portrait of Demetrius which is rare for its rich details about a
commander’s personality and the troops’ attitudes toward him (Diod.
19.81.1–6). Jane Hornblower has convincingly identifi ed Diodorus’
source here as Hieronymus, who appears to have accompanied Demetrius
during this period and to have focused his narrative on him. 12 I
am more interested in the way the author presents leader-troops relations
than in the accuracy of his statements. Hence Diodorus’ anachronistic
references to Antigonus and Demetrius as kings (a title they
held offi cially only from 306) have little bearing on my analysis.
Diodorus’ report begins with subdued criticism of Demetrius for
confi dently going into a major battle against his advisors’ recommendations
and in spite of his youth and the absence of his father. Demetrius
convened an army assembly and was ill at ease when facing it,
but the audience unanimously called upon him to take courage and
then fell silent of its own accord. The author opines that because
Demetrius was a new commander, he was free from the troubles that
characterized longstanding generalship, such as the cumulative burden
of past minor resentments that soldiers feel toward a veteran general,
and the increasing diffi culty of pleasing them. He was also liked
by those who felt that their previous general had deprived them of
something and were looking for a change. As heir to the kingship of
Antigonus, who was now elderly, Demetrius enjoyed the good will
(eunoia) of the people and became the focus of their hopes. The fact
that he was a handsome and imposing fi gure, especially in his royal
armor, induced men to respect and expect much of him. His youthful
mildness gained him universal enthusiasm and sympathy in his intimidating
task of fi ghting experienced and apparently invincible
generals such as Ptolemy and Seleucus.
The soldiers’ conduct and attitudes serve to highlight the attributes
of their leader. Indeed, forgoing reciprocity, the author tells only how
the soldiers regarded their commander and says nothing of Demetrius’
view or expectations of them. The author’s sensitive psychological
description of the troops’ state of mind shows them reacting to this
general with a mixture of hope, empathy, and even patronizing attitudes.
Such sentiments explain why, instead of having doubts about
the ability of their new commander to lead them into battle against
such formidable enemies, they wished to help this young, handsome,
and promising general and were anxious to hear what he had to say.
The historian’s extensive treatment of the soldiers’ hopes and mood
brings the reader to anticipate an equally detailed description of how