Editing Perdiccas (section)

=== Character ===
The ancient accounts are largely negative toward Perdiccas, claiming that, though "outstanding on the battlefield", he was arrogant, high-handed, and imperious.{{sfn|Heckel|2016|pp=183-184, citing Arrian Succ. Fragment 27}} [[Diodorus Siculus]] calls him ''phonikos'' (φονικός), a "man of slaughter".{{sfnm|Romm|2011|1p=212|Anson|2015|2p=116|Diod.|3loc=18.33.3. Another translation is "man of blood"}} This may be due to the "surpassing rivalry" and enmity Perdiccas had with Ptolemy, whose now lost account served as the basis for the surviving sources (chiefly [[Arrian]]) we have for Perdiccas' career.{{sfn|Diod.|loc=18.34.5}}{{sfn|Romm|2011|p=212. Romm, Errington, and Heckel believe this to be the case, Roisman does not. The examples brought up by those who believe this anti-Perdiccan Ptolemaic bias include: Arrian's lack of mention of Perdiccas receiving Alexander's ring and his promotion to chiliarch, and Arrian's description of Perdiccas' role in the [[Battle of Thebes]] as one of carelessness, among others. As Arrian notes in his histories that he followed the writings of Ptolemy, these have been argued to be calculated omissions to diminish Perdiccas' prestige by Ptolemy. Roisman, conversely, believes this bias is overblown and Ptolemy's omissions are far too subtle to have been intentional or malicious}}<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Errington |first=R. M. |date=1969-01-01 |title=Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander |journal=The Classical Quarterly |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=233–242 |doi=10.1017/S0009838800024642 |jstor=637545 |s2cid=170128227}}</ref>{{sfn|Heckel|2016|pp=155-156}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Roisman |first=Joseph |date=1984-01-01 |title=Ptolemy and His Rivals in His History of Alexander |journal=The Classical Quarterly |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=373–385 |doi=10.1017/S0009838800031001 |jstor=638295 |s2cid=163042651}}</ref> The other characteristic regularly ascribed to Perdiccas by ancient sources is boldness.<ref>{{Cite web |last=For one example, see the following |title=Aelian: Various Histories. Book XII, 39 |url=https://penelope.uchicago.edu/aelian/varhist12.xhtml#chap64 |access-date= |website=penelope.uchicago.edu}}</ref>

Although Perdiccas was evidently a capable leader and effective soldier, a "military man", he is seen to have lacked the qualities his position as regent required.{{sfn|Anson|2014|p=65}}{{sfn|Heckel|2016|pp=154-156, 159}} His rule was authoritarian and abrasive, winning him little love from the rank and file, and his punishments were often brutal.{{sfn|Anson|2014|p=65}}{{sfn|Heckel|2016|p=154}} Anson believes that Perdiccas "was not a man to be crossed" and that "most acceded to his demands in his presence rather than incur his wrath".{{sfn|Anson|2014|p=65}} Conversely, Romm writes that "When a leader has failed, the very qualities that made him a leader suddenly appear as flaws. Perdiccas' arrogance and bloody-mindedness were no more pronounced than Alexander's ... but Alexander, unlike the hapless Perdiccas, knew little of failure".{{sfn|Romm|2011|p=212}}