Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Fiona »

Prologue

OK, here goes! I’ll just post some initial thoughts and impressions, and can go into more detail if the same points have attracted anyone else’s attention.
First of all, then, I’d like to say that I am impressed with Bosworth’s style, he writes in a lively and engaging fashion. That always helps! I liked his line:
“The face of the world was changed within a decade.”
That seems to sum up Alexander’s achievements rather neatly.
It is reassuring that he seems to be aiming for even-handedness in his assessments, as he notes that Alexander has been alternately “eulogised and excoriated”.

On ‘The Legacy of Philip’

His section on the legacy of Philip was a good broad sweep of useful background, and leaves me in no doubt as to the extent of Philip’s awesome achievements, except for one little niggle – how do we know that Macedon was in such a poor state when Philip inherited it? Bosworth makes it sound as if the place was without form and void, with darkness moving upon the face of the deep, before Philip licked it into shape. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence cited for the state of Macedon pre-Philip, which makes me wonder if Archelaus, for one, isn’t being hard done-by, and also if Philip’s achievements aren’t being played up as a preliminary to playing Alexander’s down.

On evidence, and Note 3 about the trierarchs

Talking of evidence, I was rather surprised by Note 3, which says, “Note the list of trierarchs….the most brilliant, Perdiccas and Craterus, were from Orestis.”
I always thought you were supposed, in academic writing, to provide evidence for any statement like this. This sweeping statement, a personal judgment, is tucked away in a note, with no justification whatever. Who else would say that Perdiccas and Craterus were the most brilliant? I think Ptolemy and Lysimachus, not to mention Leonnatus, Hephaistion, Eumenes and Nearchus, all of them also trierarchs, might have something to say about that!

On ‘The Young Alexander’

On the very first page, Bosworth noted that “we may not go beyond the material at our disposal” and also that “Alexander, the man, will always elude us”. He sounds as if he is sorry about this, and yet he seems to be not making full use of the material at our disposal. He is writing about the young Alexander, yet he makes scant use of Plutarch, who is full of illuminating anecdotes. Clearly he does not disregard Plutarch as a source entirely, because he does use some of it, but this selective picking and choosing makes me uneasy.

On ringlets

This bit made me fume! “His hair, clustered in ringlets, was thrown back from the forehead in a central parting…”
Now, as any woman knows, a ringlet is deliberately contrived, either by rags or by curlers. It is not the same thing as a curl, which can be and often is, natural. Either Bosworth knows nothing about hair-styling, in which case he is guilty only of the careless use of words, or he is being subtlely demeaning, implying that Alexander deliberately put his hair in ringlets. Why would Bosworth do that? I am feeling rather wary, now.
And why would Alexander do that, when every representation we have of him shows clearly that his hair fell in natural waves or curls? I don’t doubt that he could be vain of his appearance and doubtless always wished to look his best, but to imply that a man would deliberately do his hair in ringlets – unless he is an Orthodox Jew – is pretty insulting and almost an accusation of femininity.

Well, a small point, maybe, but even a straw may show which way the wind blows. Looking forward to reading others’ comments!
Fiona
val
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:59 pm

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by val »

Hi Fiona!

I´ve got only a short time so I am just going to add some notes to your post.

Regarding ¨The Legacy of Philip¨, certainly Macedon had gone a long way since the times of Alexander I, but it is true that it was not in its best shape when Philip took command. I don´t think Bosworth is trying to magnify the success of the father to play down the ones of the son, he is just trying to place things in context since the phenomenon that the reign of Alexander was can not be properly understood without taking Philip´s in consideration. My question actually would be: Why is that there are so few books about Philip? Not only was he one of the first great state men in ancient history but he was also quite a personality!
I find it so disappointing that his figure had been so diluted over the time, I may understand that for the general public the ¨glamour¨ of Alexander´s conquests get the most of attention but even in the academic field books are rare . I have come to know about him by getting pieces from books about Alexander or that explore a wider historical frame.

On the note about the trierarchs, remember that this is just the introduction and the book has full chapters about the administration of the empire and the army so he might make more points about each character´s role later on.

On ¨The Young Alexander¨ I think Bosworth avoids Plutarch´s anecdotes and makes just a brief revision of Alexander´s youth because, as he clearly stated, his book is about Alexander´s Reign, not a biography, so that data is irrelevant for the purpose of his study.

On ringlets... well, I have to admit that the image of Alexander having his hair done put a smile on my face! But I think the author just wanted to say that Alexander had curly hair.

Val
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by rocktupac »

I like Bosworth's style as well. He is very clear and easy to understand, yet there is a certain poetic quality to his writing. Though he does seem to want to keep an evenhanded approach, as many modern authors claim to be attempting, I rarely come across an author that is consistently so throughout their entire book. I am interested to see if Bosworth will be any different. It seems that in the 'Notes' Bosworth is a little more subjective. So far, I think this is a great introduction to the rest of the book. It brings the reader up to the point of Alexander's accession and gives a great back-story for the rise of the Macedonian kingdom from Philip's accession.

I noticed a few times Bosworth inserts a brief comment that could be found in Plutarch (such as on page 20 about Leonidas tutoring Alexander, and other examples about Alexander's physical appearance), but fails to cite his source. But other than a few lack of citations, I actually found that in the "Young Alexander" section Bosworth uses Plutarch quite often -- 3 or 4 times on each page that I noticed.

As for the 'ringlets', I didn't imagine Alexander in curlers or anything :D I simply took it as small rings or "swoops" of hair as the busts show. Perhaps Bosworth's word choice was not the best, but I never thought of a woman's hair-style.

Some great books on Philip are: "Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism" by J.R. Ellis, and "Philip II of Macedonia" by Ian Worthington. I highly recommend both if you are interested in biographies of Philip. Both have their pros and cons, but for the most part they are very good. I look forward to future posts. This is fun!
-Scott B.
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Fiona »

Hi val,
good point about its only being the introduction, there may well be more detail later on, and more evidence cited in those places.
Bosworth certainly does place things in context, no question - there's more here about Philip than in many another book - and I like how you call the reign of Alexander a phenomenon. It's so extraordinary, it needs explaining, and Philip has to be part of the explanation - a big part, even.
It seems pretty rare in history that a brilliant king has an even more brilliant son - more often, the son is a bit of a dead loss - so there aren't that many other examples to look at of what happens when a legacy can be built on, rather than dissipated.
D'you actually find Philip an attractive character? I don't, at least, not on what I know so far. It may be that that's an unfair thing to say, perhaps the sources on Philip are less generous with anecdotes, but that's one thing I was hoping to find out here, just what the sources are.
I agree about the 'glamour' of Alexander, but I think a lot of it comes from those little details that capture the imagination.
Do we know of Philip that he ever made a joke, or gave anything special away, or loved any one thing for its own sake, or wept?
We know he got drunk and lost his temper - like father, like son! - but there's nothing attractive to balance that, again, so far as I am aware, so far.

And I do agree that Bosworth does clearly state that he isn't writing a biography, and to that extent you wouldn't expect him to include the biographical details that Plutarch gives us. What I would rather have expected, though, in the course of the introduction where he is discussing the physical appearance of Alexander, that there might have been something about his character. Don't you think that maybe he could have used the Bucephalus/Iliad bits to illustrate something of the character of the young Alexander?
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Fiona »

Hi Scott, I agree, this is fun, and I agree too that it will be good to see how even-handed it is as we go through, and also if Bosworth sticks to what he says about not going beyond the evidence. Surely he'll have to extrapolate sometimes? We'll see!
'Back-story for the rise of the Macedonian kingdom' is good - nice phrase! And very true - and I forgot to say, while fuming about ringlets, that I did like the sections on Philip's relations with Sparta, Athens and Thebes, those were very useful for pin-pointing exactly where we are, and even better, what people in those cities were expecting and not expecting to happen.

D'you think Philip really wanted Byzantium in 340, or was it only to put pressure on Athens?
And when he'd got the league to agree to war with Persia, and Bosworth says "the Macedonian king was assuming the mantle of Aristeides" - who's Aristeides? I feel I ought to know that name but I don't.
Then he says, "He(Philip) would expand the realm by retaliating for past offences against the Hellenes, and, far from promoting his private interests, he was acting for the entire Greek world."
Does Bosworth mean us to take this at face value, I wonder, or is he being sarcastic? If not sarcastic, why do the same claims by Alexander produce so much hollow laughter?
Much to ponder here!
Fiona
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by rocktupac »

Fiona wrote: 'Back-story for the rise of the Macedonian kingdom' is good - nice phrase! And very true - and I forgot to say, while fuming about ringlets, that I did like the sections on Philip's relations with Sparta, Athens and Thebes, those were very useful for pin-pointing exactly where we are, and even better, what people in those cities were expecting and not expecting to happen.
It was quite a nice section summarizing Philip's affairs in Greece. Sometimes just reading what Philip had on his plate was dizzying! He was quite the schemer.
D'you think Philip really wanted Byzantium in 340, or was it only to put pressure on Athens?
And when he'd got the league to agree to war with Persia, and Bosworth says "the Macedonian king was assuming the mantle of Aristeides" - who's Aristeides? I feel I ought to know that name but I don't.
In brief: Aristeides was an Athenian statesman who lived around the time of the Persian Wars. He personally lead attacks at the battles of Salamis and Plataea (Herodotus 8.79-81; 8.95; 9.29). Herodotus believed him to be the "best and most just man that Athens ever produced." (8.79). Plutarch also tells us that he set about changes to develop an army for a war against Persia (Aristeides 21; 23; 25; et passim).
-Scott B.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by amyntoros »

Fiona wrote:Hi val,

D'you actually find Philip an attractive character? I don't, at least, not on what I know so far. It may be that that's an unfair thing to say, perhaps the sources on Philip are less generous with anecdotes, but that's one thing I was hoping to find out here, just what the sources are.
I agree about the 'glamour' of Alexander, but I think a lot of it comes from those little details that capture the imagination.

Do we know of Philip that he ever made a joke, or gave anything special away, or loved any one thing for its own sake, or wept?

We know he got drunk and lost his temper - like father, like son! - but there's nothing attractive to balance that, again, so far as I am aware, so far.
Hi Fiona,

There are quite a few character snippets about Philip in Plutarch's Moralia and in Athenaeus. I always meant to put a file together on Philip but never got around to it, so for now I'll post the "Sayings of Philip" from the Moralia.
Plutarch’s Moralia. Volume III. 177 C – 179 D. (Sayings of Kings and Commanders) (Philip the Father of Alexander.)

1. Theophrastus has recorded that Philip, the father of Alexander, was not only great among kings, but owing to his fortune and his conduct, proved himself still greater and more moderate.

2. He said that he must congratulate the Athenians on their happy fortune if they could find ten men every year to elect as generals; for he himself in many years had found only one general, Parmenio.

3. When several happy events were reported to him within a single day, he said, "O, Fortune, do me some little ill to offset so many good things like these!"

4. After his victory over the Greeks, when some were advising him to hold the Greek cities in subjection by means of garrisons, he said that he preferred to be called a good man for a long time rather than a master for a short time.

5. When his friends advised him to banish from his court a man who maligned him, he said he would not, so that the man should not go about speaking ill of him among more people.

6. When Smicythus remarked maliciously of Nicanor that he was always speaking ill of Philip, and Philip's companions thought that he ought to send for Nicanor and punish him, Philip said, "But really Nicanor is not the worst of the Macedonians. We must investigate therefore whether something is not happening for which we are responsible." When he learned therefore that Nicanor was hard pressed by poverty, and had been neglected by him, he directed that a present be given to the man. So when again Smicythus said that Nicanor was continually sounding the praises of the Philip to everybody in a surprising way, Philip said, "You all see that we ourselves are responsible for the good and the ill that is said of us."

7. He said that he felt very grateful to the popular leaders of the Athenians, because by maligning him they made him better both in speech and in character, "For I try both by my words and by my deeds to prove that they are liars."

8. When all the Athenians who had been taken captive at Chaeroneai were set free by him without ransom, but asked for the return of their clothing and bedding besides, and complained against the Macedonians, Philip laughed and said to his men, "Does it not seem to you that the Athenians think they have been beaten by us in a game of knucklebones?"

9. When the keybone of his shoulder had been broken in battle, and the attending physician insistently demanded a fee every day, he said, "Take as much as you wish: for you have the key in your charge!"

10. Of two brothers, Both and Each, he observed that Each was sensible and practical, and Both was silly and foolish, and he remarked that Each was both and Both was neither!

11. Those who counseled him to treat the Athenians harshly he said were silly in urging a man who did everything and underwent everything for the sake of repute to throw away his chance to exhibit it.

12. Being called upon to decide a suit between two knaves, he ordered the one to flee from Macedonia, and the other to pursue him.

13. When he was about to pitch his camp in an excellent place, he learned that there was no grass for the pack-animals. "What a life is ours," he said, "If we must live to suit the convenience of the asses!"

14. When he was desirous of capturing a certain stronghold, his scouts reported that it was altogether difficult and quite impregnable, whereupon he asked if it were so difficult that not even an ass laden with money could approach it.

15. When the men associated with Lasthenes, the Olynthian, complained with indignation because some of Philip’s associates called them traitors, he said that the Macedonians are by nature a rough and rustic people who call a spade a spade.

16. He recommended to his son that he associate with the Macedonians so as to win their favour, and thus acquire for himself influence with the masses while another was reigning and while it was possible for him to be humane.

17. He also advised him that, among the men of influence in the cities, he should make friends of both the good and the bad, and later he should use the former and abuse the latter.

18. Philon the Theban had been his benefactor and host during the time he spent as a hostage in Thebes, but later would not accept any gift from him; whereupon Philip said to him, "Do not deprive me of my invincibility by letting me be outdone in benefactions and favours."

19. On a time when many prisoners had been taken, Philip was overseeing their sale, sitting with his tunic pulled up in an unseemly way. So one of the men who were being sold cried out, "Spare me, Philip, for I am a friend of your father's." And when Philip asked, "Where, sirrah, and how came you to be such?" the man said, "I wish to tell you privately, if I may come near you." And when he was brought forward, he said, "Put your cloak a little lower, for you are exposing too much of yourself as you are sitting now." And Philip said, "Let him go free, for it had escaped me that he is truly a loyal friend."

20. Once when he was on the march, and was invited to dinner by a man of the land, he took a good many persons with him: and when he saw that his host was much perturbed, since the preparations that had been made were inadequate, he sent word in advance to each of his friends, and told them to "leave room for cake." They took his advice and, expecting more to follow, did not eat much, and thus there was enough for all.

21. When Hipparchus of Euboea died, it was plain that Philip took it much to heart; and when somebody remarked, "But, as a matter of fact, his death has come in the fullness of time," Philip said, "Yes, in fullness of time for him, it is true, but swiftly for me, for he came to his end too soon to receive from me, as he ought, favours worthy of our friendship."

22.Learning that Alexander complained against him because he was having children by other women besides his wife, he said, "Well then, if you have many competitors for the kingdom, prove yourself honourable and good, so that you may obtain the kingdom not because of me, but because of yourself." He bade Alexander give heed to Aristotle, and study philosophy, "so that." as he said "you may not do a great many things of the sort that I am sorry to have done."

23. He appointed one of Antipater's friends to the position of judge, but later, on learning that the man dyed his beard and hair, he removed him, at the same time remarking that he did not believe that a man who was untrustworthy in the matter of hair was to be trusted in actions.

24. While he was hearing the case of Machaetas, he was near falling asleep, and did not give full attention to the rights of the case, but decided against Machaetas. And when Machaetas exclaimed that he appealed from the decision, Philip, thoroughly enraged, said, "To whom?" And Machaetas replied, "To you yourself, Your Majesty, if you will listen awake and attentive." At the time Philip merely ended the sitting, but when he had gained more control of himself and realized that Machaetas was treated unfairly, he did not reverse his decision, but satisfied the judgement with his own money.

25. When Harpalus, acting in behalf of his kinsman and intimate friend Crates, who was under condemnation for wrongdoing, proposed as a fair solution that Crates should pay the fine, but be absolved from the adverse judgement so that he should not be subject to reproach, Philip said, "It is better that the man himself, rather than that we because of him, should be ill spoken of."

26. When his friends were indignant because the people of the Peloponnesus hissed at him at the Olympic games, although they had been treated well, he said, "Well, what if they should be treated ill!"

27. Once on a campaign he slept for an unusually long time, and later, when he arose, he said, "I slept safely, for Antipater was awake."

28. On another occasion when he was asleep in the daytime, and the Greeks who had gathered at his doors were indignant and complaining, Parmenio said, "Do not be astonished that Philip is asleep now; for while you were asleep he was awake."

29. When he desired to correct a harp-player at dinner, and to discuss the playing of this instrument, the harp-player said, "God forbid, Your Majesty, that you should ever fall so low as to have a better knowledge of these matters than I."

30. At a time when he was at odds with Olympias, his wife, and with his son, Demaratus of Corinth arrived, and Philip inquired of him how the Greeks were feeling towards one another. And Demaratus said, "Much right have you to talk about the harmony of the Greeks when the dearest of your own household feel so towards you!" Philip, taking the thought to heart, ceased from his anger, and became reconciled with them.

31. When a poor old woman insisted that her case should be heard before him, and often caused him annoyance, he said he had no time to spare, whereupon she burst out, "Then give up being king." Philip, amazed at her words, proceeded at once to hear not only her case but those of the others.
Fiona wrote: 'Back-story for the rise of the Macedonian kingdom' is good - nice phrase! And very true - and I forgot to say, while fuming about ringlets, that I did like the sections on Philip's relations with Sparta, Athens and Thebes, those were very useful for pin-pointing exactly where we are, and even better, what people in those cities were expecting and not expecting to happen.
I was thinking the same thing as I read, and how useful it would be to have a parallel timeline of Macedonia, Athens, Thebes, Sparta and Persia. Am afraid though that my knowledge of affairs outside of Philip's Macedonia just isn't good enough to embark on the task.

One final thing that I thought particularly interesting. On page 16 of the prologue Bosworth says about the aftermath of the battle of Chaeoronea: "The end of the day saw Philip supreme in Greece. For Thebes it meant the end of her hegemony in Boeotia and replacement of her moderate democracy by a strictly limited oligarchic junta comprised mainly of returning exiles." I think it's fairly safe to assume that this "junta" was favorable to Philip and to Macedonia. So what happened between then and the time that Alexander ascended to the throne? Were they overthrown and did Thebes return to her democracy after the death of Philip? Yep … I really need that timeline. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:D'you think Philip really wanted Byzantium in 340, or was it only to put pressure on Athens?
Oh, he wanted Byzantium. A methodical bugger was Philip. He’d been “at it” with Athens since day one – after the politicians in Athens had backed the "pretender" Argaeus to his throne. Athens had been involved in on again / off again war with Philip ever since. Philip’s expansion of the Macedonian state began with the taking of the city Athens had been trying to retake for years: Amphipolis. He'd actually promised to hand this over to Athens and credulous Athenian policians waited. Pydna and Methone followed and then the “Thraceward region”. By the time Philip was making his final forays into eastern Thrace and the Chersonese he’d been seriously disturbing the interests of the Athenians - still awaiting the handing over of Amphipolis - for some considerable time. Had Philip controlled Byzantium he’d have controlled Athens’ life-line and a re-run of the close of the Peloponnesian War was on offer – even with a somewhat inferior fleet.

Philip’s ambivalent relationship with Athens could well be the subject of a book. I’ve always thought Philip wanted Athens’ chisel-on-stone in “subject-alliance” without having to extort it at sarisa-point. In the end, that’s what he was forced into.
Fiona wrote:Then he says, "He(Philip) would expand the realm by retaliating for past offences against the Hellenes, and, far from promoting his private interests, he was acting for the entire Greek world."
Does Bosworth mean us to take this at face value, I wonder, or is he being sarcastic? If not sarcastic, why do the same claims by Alexander produce so much hollow laughter?
Much to ponder here!
Fiona
That is exactly the way I read it: Philip’s propaganda would have it that he and the Macedonians were to undertake this war of retribution on behalf of the Greeks. Perish the thought that he’d expand the Macedonian Empire in the process of so doing. The Gods knew there were much more interesting and personally important things he actually wanted to do.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Fiona »

Thank you, Scott! Aristeides was a great role-model for Philip, then.
Fiona
rocktupac wrote: In brief: Aristeides was an Athenian statesman who lived around the time of the Persian Wars. He personally lead attacks at the battles of Salamis and Plataea (Herodotus 8.79-81; 8.95; 9.29). Herodotus believed him to be the "best and most just man that Athens ever produced." (8.79). Plutarch also tells us that he set about changes to develop an army for a war against Persia (Aristeides 21; 23; 25; et passim).
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Fiona »

Thanks so much for the sayings of Philip! Those were great, his character comes through so well. Some great one-liners there - maybe not on a level with "So would I, were I Parmenion", but still pretty good, he could crack a joke.
Interesting that he was a night-owl too then, like Alexander, sleeping in the daytime!
amyntoros wrote: One final thing that I thought particularly interesting. On page 16 of the prologue Bosworth says about the aftermath of the battle of Chaeoronea: "The end of the day saw Philip supreme in Greece. For Thebes it meant the end of her hegemony in Boeotia and replacement of her moderate democracy by a strictly limited oligarchic junta comprised mainly of returning exiles." I think it's fairly safe to assume that this "junta" was favorable to Philip and to Macedonia. So what happened between then and the time that Alexander ascended to the throne? Were they overthrown and did Thebes return to her democracy after the death of Philip? Yep … I really need that timeline. :)
That's a very interesting point. Chaeronea's 338, and the destruction of Thebes 335, so that's only three years - not very long for democracy to re-establish itself, is it? Maybe something to do with underestimating Alexander? Even the junta, once Philip was dead, seeing their chance to get a bit of independence back? Perhaps Bosworth will have some more to say about this when we get to Thebes, I hope so.
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Fiona »

Paralus wrote:
Oh, he wanted Byzantium. A methodical bugger was Philip. He’d been “at it” with Athens since day one – after the politicians in Athens had backed the "pretender" Argaeus to his throne. Athens had been involved in on again / off again war with Philip ever since. Philip’s expansion of the Macedonian state began with the taking of the city Athens had been trying to retake for years: Amphipolis. He'd actually promised to hand this over to Athens and credulous Athenian policians waited. Pydna and Methone followed and then the “Thraceward region”. By the time Philip was making his final forays into eastern Thrace and the Chersonese he’d been seriously disturbing the interests of the Athenians - still awaiting the handing over of Amphipolis - for some considerable time. Had Philip controlled Byzantium he’d have controlled Athens’ life-line and a re-run of the close of the Peloponnesian War was on offer – even with a somewhat inferior fleet.
Thanks, Paralus - it seems he had a tidy mind, and wanted all those odd bits of the north neatly in his own care! It's interesting that he seems to have this respect for Athens. and though he wanted her on side, and would do it by force if he had to, he didn't really want it to be that way.
Paralus wrote:
That is exactly the way I read it: Philip’s propaganda would have it that he and the Macedonians were to undertake this war of retribution on behalf of the Greeks. Perish the thought that he’d expand the Macedonian Empire in the process of so doing. The Gods knew there were much more interesting and personally important things he actually wanted to do.
Very annoying for him. :lol: The cruise to the Pillars of Heracles and the flute-playing lessons were just going to have to wait...
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:
amyntoros wrote: One final thing that I thought particularly interesting. On page 16 of the prologue Bosworth says about the aftermath of the battle of Chaeoronea: "The end of the day saw Philip supreme in Greece. For Thebes it meant the end of her hegemony in Boeotia and replacement of her moderate democracy by a strictly limited oligarchic junta comprised mainly of returning exiles." I think it's fairly safe to assume that this "junta" was favorable to Philip and to Macedonia. So what happened between then and the time that Alexander ascended to the throne? Were they overthrown and did Thebes return to her democracy after the death of Philip? Yep … I really need that timeline. :)
That's a very interesting point. Chaeronea's 338, and the destruction of Thebes 335, so that's only three years - not very long for democracy to re-establish itself, is it? Maybe something to do with underestimating Alexander? Even the junta, once Philip was dead, seeing their chance to get a bit of independence back? Perhaps Bosworth will have some more to say about this when we get to Thebes, I hope so.
Fiona
Arian at Anab 1.7.8.1ff wrote: While these events (Thrace/Illyria) were occurring, some of the exiles who had been banished from Thebes, coming to the city by night, and being brought in by some of the citizens, in order to effect a change in the government, apprehended and slew outside the Cadmea, Amyntas and Timolaus, two of the men who held that fortress, having no suspicion that any hostile attempt was about to be made. Then entering the public assembly, they incited the Thebans to revolt from Alexander, holding out to them as pretexts the ancient and glorious words, liberty and freedom of speech, and urging them now at last to rid themselves of the heavy yoke of the Macedonians. By stoutly maintaining that Alexander had been killed in Illyria they gained more power in persuading the multitude; and what is more, this report was prevalent, and for many reasons gained credit, both because he had been absent a long time, and because no news had arrived from him. Accordingly, as is usual in such cases, not knowing the facts, each man conjectured what was most pleasing to himself.
Diodorus at 17.8.2-3 wrote: This task was not yet finished when messengers reached him reporting that many of the Greeks were in revolt. Many cities had actually taken steps to throw off the Macedonian alliance, the most important of these being Thebes. At this intelligence, the king was roused to return in haste to Macedonia in his anxiety to put an end to the unrest in Greece. The Thebans sought first of all to expel the Macedonian garrison from the Cadmeia and laid siege to this citadel; this was the situation when the king appeared suddenly before the city and encamped with his whole army near by.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by marcus »

Fiona wrote:That's a very interesting point. Chaeronea's 338, and the destruction of Thebes 335, so that's only three years - not very long for democracy to re-establish itself, is it? Maybe something to do with underestimating Alexander? Even the junta, once Philip was dead, seeing their chance to get a bit of independence back? Perhaps Bosworth will have some more to say about this when we get to Thebes, I hope so.
Fiona
Well, Paralus has provided the quotes. Basically, when Philip was dead the anti-Macedonians in Thebes started making democratic noises, but one of the first things Alexander did was to sweep down into Greece to prevent those noises from becoming a full-blown shrugging off of the pro-Macedonians. His lightning march, including cutting steps into Mount Ossa in order to avoid being held up, so frightened the city states that they submitted meekly ... until the news came that Alexander had been killed in Thrace in 335 - at which point those pesky Athenians encouraged the Thebans to throw off the Macedonian yoke, with the predictable consequences.

It was all Demosthenes' fault! :D

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by Paralus »

And, Marcus, you can well believe that those Thebans inciting rebellion had - until recently - been given comfort at Athens.

Athens absolutely hated Thebes - unless it could use her.

Demosthenes indeed.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Book Club: Conquest and Empire

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:And, Marcus, you can well believe that those Thebans inciting rebellion had - until recently - been given comfort at Athens.

Athens absolutely hated Thebes - unless it could use her.

Demosthenes indeed.
:D :D
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply