Sicily

This chapter focuses on Agathokles’ involvement in eastern and central Sicily, which was the core of his domain throughout his reign. It argues that Agathokles rose to power largely from conflicts particular to the domestic situation in Syracuse after Timoleon and that the driver of Agathokles’ establishment of a large kingdom in Sicily was not primarily the example of the Diadochoi in the East. Rather it was the interlocked nature of civic conflict in Sicily and the model for dealing with this provided by earlier Sicilian history.

Historiography

Study of the literary sources on Agathokles has been characterized by speculation on the lost sources that our surviving sources might have used. This chapter endorses the recent trend of seeing the surviving texts as works of literature in their own right, but emphasizes that to do this it remains necessary to understand what we can of the sources that confronted surviving sources. Firstly, what is known about the lost authors—Antandros, Kallias, Douris, and Timaios—is presented with an emphasis on the limits of our knowledge about them. Then, Diodoros, Justin/Trogus, Polyainos, and other surviving sources on Agathokles are discussed, focusing on how the sources that they had available to them and their approach to them shaped their narratives of Agathokles and how their accounts of him were also shaped by their broader narrative purposes and themes.

Agathokles’ Life and Times

This chapter provides a narrative overview of Agathokles’ life and career as a foundation for the analytical chapters which follow. The collapse and revival of Syracusan hegemony in Sicily and the rise of Macedon in mainland Greece were the central features of Agathokles’ youth. His rise to dominance in Syracuse in the years preceding 317 BC highlight the difficulties inherent in our source material for his career. This seizure of power resulted in three interlinked wars: against his exiled Syracusan opponents, against the other poleis of eastern Sicily, and eventually against the Carthaginians. Agathokles invaded Africa in 310. Unable to decisively defeat the Carthaginians, he made peace with them in 306, but destroyed his opponents in Sicily. Around 304 BC he assumed the title of king. Subsequently he engaged in campaigns in southern Italy and the Adriatic. An ill-managed succession resulted in the dissolution of his kingdom at his death in 289.

Mainland Greece and the Diadochoi

This chapter deals with Agathokles’ relations with the cities of mainland Greece and the Macedonian warlords. Ties with mainland Greece were already deep at the start of Agathokles’ reign; relationships with Corinth and Sparta were of key importance during his original seizure of power. These ongoing relationships played a significant role in the construction of identity on both sides of the Adriatic. The Macedonian warlords loomed large in Sicily, partly because their activities seriously disrupted these relationships. Agathokles strove to keep them as far away from himself as possible while watching for opportunities to take advantage of their strife. The Diadochoi were quick to seize any ideology, resource, tactic, or alliance to gain the advantage over their foes. It is no surprise, therefore, that several strove to forge links with Agathokles, often employing the old links between Sicily and the poleis of Greece to do so.

Coinage

The only truly contemporary source material that we have for Agathokles is his coinage and it has a number of stories to tell that no other source offers. The circulation patterns of Agathokles’ coinage show that Syracuse’s economic interactions with the wider world under Agathokles were similar to those which took place under his predecessor Dionysios. Quantification of Agathokles’ coinage allows us to compare his economic resources with those of his predecessors and contemporaries. The iconography of Agathokles’ coinage shows the same effort to connect Agathokles to both his Sicilian predecessors and Macedonian contemporaries. The idea that the legends and iconography of Agathokles’ coins illustrate a transition from tyrant to Hellenistic king is challenged.

Tyrannosiculus Rex

This chapter deals with Agathokles’ rulership and self-representation, arguing that the adoption of the title of king or basileus did not mark a fundamental rupture in Agathokles’ reign and rulership style—a transition from Sicilian tyranny to Hellenistic monarchy. Rather it was simply an attempt to re-establish his legitimacy after the conclusion of the war with Carthage. A number of features that have been identified as characteristic of a new Hellenistic model of rule are already apparent in the evidence for Agathokles’ conduct before his assumption of the royal title and in the regimes of his predecessors in Syracuse. A number of significant divergences from Hellenistic kingship are also divergences from the practice of Agathokles’ predecessors. Most can be explained by Agathokles’ financial situation, the biases of our evidence, or are also absent from the practice of some of the Diadochoi.

Italy

The nature of the source material means that our understanding of Agathokles’ activities in Italy will always be patchy. This chapter reconstructs the course of events in the region during his reign as far as is possible. Agathokles’ activities in this region are best understood in the context of earlier Syracusan interventions in Italy. Like them, he entered the region as a result of the ideology of Sicilian tyranny, the absence of a clear border at the Straits of Messana, the pull of internal Italian conflicts, and the desire to have a forward defence against invasion from mainland Greece. The goal was not control of territory per se but the control of movement through that territory.

Conclusion

Throughout this book, I have argued that Agathokles is best understood by putting him in the context of both his Sicilian predecessors and his Hellenistic contemporaries, emphasizing that Agathokles participated in the changes occurring in his world, while also continuing many earlier patterns and practices. Agathokles represents both continuity and change, was both a local and a Panhellenic phenomenon....

Carthage

This chapter analyses the relationship between Agathokles and the Carthaginians as part of a long-term historical process and a wide-ranging pan-Mediterranean system of interaction. The Carthaginians sought to maintain a dominant situation in Sicily and prevent attacks from the eastern part of the island by keeping the Greek poleis there divided. This approach clashed with Agathokles’ priorities (as outlined in chapter 6) and with the aggressive model of engagement that had been laid down by Agathokles’ predecessors. Agathokles’ invasion of Africa was a novel expansion of earlier Sicilian leaders’ approach to war with Carthage. Various structural features—especially the disparity in the naval power of Carthage and Syracuse—made its failure nearly inevitable, but it provided the template for the conduct of both the Romans and the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars.

Telling Tales about the King

Α‎necdotes about Agathokles in our literary sources were told because they were thought to illuminate his character or a general truth about the world and indicate how he was fitted into the broader dialogue on autocracy and power. There is a clash between the characterization of Agathokles as an effective military leader and as a monstrous tyrant, resulting from the nature of the lost historical narratives and from the way Agathokles was used by subsequent interlocutors: his successors in Sicily, the Romans, and authors looking for exempla. Many of the anecdotes are shared with mythical figures, mainland Greek and Sicilian tyrants, Hellenistic kings, and non-Greek rulers. The distinction between different types of autocrat was less important in ancient Greek and Latin discourse than their common features.