Alexander the Great created a mighty empire that stretched from the Balkans to Egypt and as far east as India, establishing the Hellenistic period. The empire was a creation of a brave man with vision, leaving behind generals and conquerors to continue his dynasty. Yet, behind the political and military struggles stood some remarkable women who influenced the succession of the dynasty.
After Alexander’s death in 323 BC, his generals—the Diadochi (successors) —fought for control of his vast empire and established a series of competing kingdoms. Traditionally, histories of this period emphasize the acts and achievements of male rulers, generals, and conquerors. Behind some of these men there were women who participated significantly in political alliances, warfare, diplomacy, and royal legitimacy. Aleksandar Simić and Petra Sršić, in their study Notorious Women in the Age of Glorious Men: Influential Women of the Early Hellenistic Period, draw attention to these women and demonstrate that they were not merely passive participants in a male-dominated political system.
The position of women in the early Hellenistic world was complex. Royal women were often valuable to men because marriage could create political alliances between rival dynasties and families. However, these marriages gave women access to royal households, wealth, political networks, and, in some cases, military power. The authors therefore emphasize an important distinction: women could be used by men to strengthen political positions, but they could also use these same structures to pursue their own ambitions. Their influence was particularly visible during periods of succession and civil conflict, when questions of legitimacy became crucial.
Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great
One of the most important figures of the Hellenistic period was Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great. Her importance began during the reign of Philip II, whose marriage to Olympias made her part of the Macedonian royal dynasty. She was not simply the mother of a future conqueror; she was an active political figure who understood the importance of dynastic succession. Ancient sources portray her as ambitious, forceful, and sometimes ruthless. After Philip’s assassination in 336 BC, Olympias returned to Macedonia and became deeply involved in protecting the position of her son Alexander.
Following Alexander’s death, she again intervened directly in Macedonian politics. In 317 BC she supported the claims of Alexander IV, her grandson, against competing dynastic interests. She raised an army and confronted Philip III Arrhidaeus (Alexander’s mentally impaired half-brother) and his wife Adea-Eurydike. Olympias ultimately defeated them, but her victory was temporary. Cassander later defeated Olympias’ army and ordered her execution.
Olympias illustrates a central theme of the early Hellenistic period: women could become political actors when royal legitimacy was at stake. Her actions were often represented by ancient male writers in negative terms, and her ambition was sometimes interpreted as unnatural or threatening. Nevertheless, her career demonstrates that Macedonian royal women could possess substantial political authority. Her power came partly from her relationship with Alexander, but she also acted independently, making decisions that directly affected the succession to the Macedonian throne.
Kleopatra, Alexander’s sister
Another important woman was Kleopatra, the daughter of Philip II and Olympias and the full sister of Alexander the Great. Her marriage was itself an instrument of international politics. Philip arranged her marriage to Alexander of Molossia, the ruler of Epirus, thereby strengthening relations between Macedonia and Epirus. Kleopatra consequently became queen of Epirus and exercised authority in her own right after the death of her husband. Her position shows how royal women could serve as bridges between different political powers.
Marriage did not necessarily remove women from politics; instead, it could transfer their political significance from one court to another. The importance of Kleopatra and other Macedonian royal women is part of a broader pattern in which female members of ruling families became essential to the survival and expansion of dynasties.
The turbulent years following Alexander’s death also brought forward Kynane and Adea-Eurydike. Kynane, another daughter of Philip II, was notable because she possessed military experience and a strong dynastic claim. Her determination to marry her daughter Adea to Philip III Arrhidaeus demonstrates how royal women could use marriage and lineage to strengthen their political position. Kynane’s attempt to travel with an army to confront opposition illustrates that women could participate directly in military affairs. Her career challenges the assumption that warfare and political leadership were exclusively male activities.
Her daughter Adea-Eurydike, later known as Eurydike, went even further. She became the wife of Philip III Arrhidaeus and emerged as an important political figure during the struggle for control of Macedonia. According to the Hellenistic period tradition examined by Simić and Sršić, she did not remain a ceremonial queen but actively sought political power. In 317 BC she confronted Olympias and attempted to defend her husband’s position. Her troops, however, eventually deserted her because they preferred the legitimacy associated with Alexander’s mother and grandson. Eurydike was captured and forced to die by suicide after Olympias’s victory.
The Seleucid women
The importance of women in the early Hellenistic period was not limited to Macedonia. Alexander had urged his generals to marry Asian women to forge family relations with Asian noble families. In the developing Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms after Alexander’s death, royal women became increasingly important to the construction of dynastic legitimacy. Apama, a Sogdian noblewoman, wife of Seleucus I Nicator, is a particularly significant example. Unlike other generals who abandoned their Asian wives, Seleucus kept Apama.
Apama’s marriage, connected the Macedonian ruling elite with the eastern populations of Alexander’s former empire. Her position represented a new political reality in which the Successor kingdoms combined Macedonian, Greek, and Near Eastern traditions. Marriage could therefore function as a mechanism for integrating different populations and legitimizing new dynasties. Apama’s importance also demonstrates that the political role of royal women extended beyond the immediate succession struggles in Macedonia.
Stratonice of Syria, the second wife of Seleucus, provides an even clearer example of the political significance of royal marriage. Seleucus’ son, Antiochus fell madly in love with his stepmother. To save his son’s life who was acting crazy from his passion, Seleucus gave up Stratonice in marriage to him in 294 BC. At the same time Seleucus announced that Antiochus would be king of the eastern provinces. Antiochus I Soter became king and queen Stratonice had five children with him, thus extending branches to the Seleucid dynasty.
The Ptolemies in Egypt
The Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt offers perhaps the strongest evidence of the political influence that royal women could eventually achieve. Berenice I became the wife of Ptolemy I Soter and the mother of Ptolemy II. She managed that her son Ptolemy II Philadelphus was recognized as his father’s heir in preference to her mother’s first cousin Eurydice’s children to Ptolemy I. Berenice’s marriage contributed to the establishment of the Ptolemaic royal family, while her descendants became central to one of the longest-lasting Hellenistic dynasties.
Even more influential was Arsinoe II (c. 316–270/268 BC), daughter of Berenice, who became one of the most powerful queens of the Hellenistic world. Arsinoe’s political career started at age 15 when she married 60-year-old King of Thrace, Lysimachus and became queen. When he died, she married Ptolemy Keraunos – son of Polemy I Soter – who ruled as King of Macedon. When he became too powerful, Arsinoe conspired against him. Ptolemy Keraunos found out and ordered the death of her two sons. Arsinoe fled to Egypt where she married her brother, Ptolemy II, and both were given the epithet “Philadelphoi” (Φιλάδελφοι, “Sibling-lovers”).
After that marriage, Arsinoe extended beyond the conventional expectations of a royal wife. From the moment she first married, she participated in dynastic politics, accumulated influence, and became closely associated with the ideological presentation of Ptolemaic monarchy. She became a role model for later Ptolemaic queens, always alongside her brother in ritual and public display. Her later association with divine honors demonstrates how the political power of a queen could be transformed into a permanent component of royal ideology.
The princesses married to Alexander and his generals
The authors also draw attention to women whose influence did not derive exclusively from formal royal status. Amastris, for example, niece of king Darius III, was a Persian princess. Alexander the Great had given her in marriage to General Craterus, making her the first important woman in the political world of the Successors. After Alexander’s death, she married Dionysius, tyrant of Heraclea Pontica, and later Successor Lysimachus, king of Thrace. After her marriage to Lysimachus ended, Amastris retired to Heraclea, which she governed as tyrant in her own right.
Also, women such as Barsine and Roxane demonstrate the importance of Alexander’s relationships with women from the territories he conquered. Barsine, a Persian noblewoman, became the wife of Alexander and had a son, Heracles. Roxane, a Bactrian princess, became Alexander’s wife and the mother of Alexander IV. After Alexander’s death, Roxane’s importance was primarily dynastic: her son represented a direct connection to Alexander’s bloodline and therefore became an important instrument in the struggle for legitimacy. Her fate also illustrates the vulnerability of royal women and children in periods of succession crisis.
The influence of hetairai
An especially interesting aspect of the early Hellenistic world was the influence of hetairai, the elite courtesans. Unlike royal wives, these women did not necessarily possess formal dynastic authority, yet some acquired remarkable wealth, social connections, and access to powerful men. The paper discusses figures such as Lamia, associated with Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Glykera, associated with Harpalus. Lamia in particular demonstrates that a woman could exercise social and economic influence without being a queen. Ancient sources even associate her with considerable wealth and public honors. Her position illustrates the blurred boundaries between private relationships and public politics in Hellenistic society.
At the same time, it is important not to romanticize the position of hetairai. These women operated within societies in which political authority was overwhelmingly associated with men. Their opportunities were often dependent on their relationships to fathers, husbands, sons, or brothers. Moreover, the ancient sources that preserve their stories were largely written by men and frequently portrayed ambitious women as dangerous, manipulative, or immoral. Simić and Sršić’s approach is therefore valuable because it attempts to recover female agency from narratives that traditionally focus on male rulers. Their study does not suggest that women simply replaced men as political leaders; rather, it demonstrates that the Hellenistic political system could not function without women who helped construct dynasties, alliances, and claims to legitimacy.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
