Amyntas

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Amyntas

Post by the_accursed »

agesilaos wrote:The story of Alexander being urged to produce an heir almost certainly originated after he died without one,
On what facts do you base that statement?
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Amyntas

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:
amyntoros wrote:It's all speculation though, isn't it?
Of course: that' what I wrote.
I know, I know. Should have put a smiley there so I’ll put it here instead. :)
Paralus wrote:
The point about remaining in Macedonia is cogent. If one thing is clear in the settlement of Triparadeisos it is that Antipater emerged trump (by the skin of his teeth). Had the heir to the throne been in Pella with the Old Rope he may well have trumped Babyon's straight flush of marshalls with a royal flush.
But it's this particular scenario which has me wondering if much would have changed, and it also causes me to ask the most questions. Would the Marshalls, metaphorically gazing around what they came to see as their new found empire have accepted any instructions from "the Old Rope" as regent? Or would they have been unable to resist divving up the empire, as before, rather than obeying Antipater? And the major question - would the army have supported them, or would having a Macedonian heir cause all the rank and file in Asia to devotedly follow Antipater simply because he had “possession” of the child? I understand their desire for an Argead heir, I’m just not sure whether, after being away from Macedonia for so long and witnessing all the riches of Asia ,they would follow Antipater unquestioningly. (And that's what I was thinking of when I wrote the "spectre" of a regent) All rhetorical questions, of course, but your knowledge of post-Alexander politics and military matters trumps mine which is why I asked the question about divided loyalites.

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: Amyntas

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:Would the Marshalls, metaphorically gazing around what they came to see as their new found empire have accepted any instructions from "the Old Rope" as regent? Or would they have been unable to resist divving up the empire, as before, rather than obeying Antipater? And the major question - would the army have supported them, or would having a Macedonian heir cause all the rank and file in Asia to devotedly follow Antipater simply because he had “possession” of the child? I understand their desire for an Argead heir, I’m just not sure whether, after being away from Macedonia for so long and witnessing all the riches of Asia ,they would follow Antipater unquestioningly. (And that's what I was thinking of when I wrote the "spectre" of a regent).
Suppose we proceed from the basis that an eleven or twelve year old Alexander IV resides in Macedonia with Antipater and Olympias (the poor “Old Rope”). Again, we are speculating but, still, some things are reasonably clear.

The “rank and file” (phalanx infantry) were not the unquestioning, ignorant lot sometimes assumed. Alexander himself had been forced to deal with their views increasingly after the fall of Persia. In Babylon it is clear they did not entirely trust those Curtius calls the “principes” or the marshals. It is also clear that they preferred a living Argead monarch to the promise of a possible son of Alexander. They also saw themselves as Macedonian and, thus, had there been a son of Alexander in Pella I would still think him to be a shoe in.

Also Perdiccas lost no time, once matters had begun to settle in Babylon, in mollifying Antipater and sought alliance via marriage. It is apparent that the viceroy of Europe would have an important say in where matters proceeded. The question then becomes what effect a twelve year old son of Alexander residing in Pella will have had on Antipater’s position?

There clearly was a respect or “reverence” for the royal family amongst the phalanx. Perdiccas had already dodged a sarissa shoved across his bow in Cilicia when the troops vented their displeasure at the murder of Cynnane. They showed a complete lack of patience with the “man of blood” by topping him in Egypt.

Whilst Antipater had his problems with the phalanx at Triparadeisos, this related far more to the moneys they were owed and a lack of patience with the political machinations of the players. Even so, he comes up trumps.

In the events following Alexander’s death the loyalty to the royal family is clearly displayed by the Silver Shields who dutifully respond both to the regent (Polyperchon) and Olympias and take service under Eumenes in the name of the kings. There are no great rewards or riches on offer. In Macedon an entire army deserts Arrhidaeus for the “mother of Alexander” and Alexander IV.

Well though the marshals in Babylon may have gazed upon their empire. Had Antipater arrived with a twelve year old son of Alexander – likely already “acclaimed” in Pella – the phalanx infantry will have followed suit. Antipater was old and, as later events showed, had little interested in the Asian empire. I don’t think that the rank and file will have felt uncomfortable with Philip’s old diplomat and general as regent.

As to the idea that the marshals might still be intent on divvying up the empire, I don’t buy the breaking up part. The notion of the Diadochoi being “separatists” or otherwise does not really stand scrutiny: all contrived for the whole at one time or another according to means and opportunity. All failed. The closest to an Alexander may have been Antigonus or Seleucus; the closest to a “Philip II” Antigonus Doson a century later.
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
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Amyntas

Post by agesilaos »

Accursed, I am always suspicious of reports of private conversations in late sources that fit pat with the eventual facts. It's like prophecies, it generally turns out they were written post eventum if they are clear or interpreted post eventum if they are obscure. :shock:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Amyntas

Post by the_accursed »

agesilaos wrote:Accursed, I am always suspicious of reports of private conversations in late sources that fit pat with the eventual facts. It's like prophecies, it generally turns out they were written post eventum if they are clear or interpreted post eventum if they are obscure. :shock:
While I'd agree were we talking about stories intended to make Alexander the known ”world conqueror” seem like he was a prodigy in his youth, I can't agree in this case. Philip telling Alexander to find a greater kingdom than Macedonia would have been remarkable. Two experienced generals advising their new king to get married and father an heir before launching a campaign against a powerful empire does not seem unrealistic to me. Understanding that such a project would be risky and that the king might die, as he almost did already at the Granicus, would not have required any prophetic talents.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Amyntas

Post by marcus »

the_accursed wrote:
agesilaos wrote:Accursed, I am always suspicious of reports of private conversations in late sources that fit pat with the eventual facts. It's like prophecies, it generally turns out they were written post eventum if they are clear or interpreted post eventum if they are obscure. :shock:
While I'd agree were we talking about stories intended to make Alexander the known ”world conqueror” seem like he was a prodigy in his youth, I can't agree in this case. Philip telling Alexander to find a greater kingdom than Macedonia would have been remarkable. Two experienced generals advising their new king to get married and father an heir before launching a campaign against a powerful empire does not seem unrealistic to me. Understanding that such a project would be risky and that the king might die, as he almost did already at the Granicus, would not have required any prophetic talents.
That's true, but had Alexander died at the Granicus, it would only have been a matter of months after he had been advised to get an heir. So, either he wouldn't have been at the Granicus then, or at the most he would have left a (possibly) pregnant woman behind in Macedonia whose baby would almost certainly, if born at all, have had no chance at all of taking over the kingdom (or probably of surviving infancy). Alexander's acquiescence in Parmenion/Antipater's counsel would have been for nothing.

Please remember that I do not disagree in any way that it was perhaps inadvisable for Alexander to leave Macedonia without producing an heir, or at least taking steps to produce one; but my original comment still stands: inadvisable, yes, but idiotic is too harsh a word in my opinion.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Amyntas

Post by the_accursed »

marcus wrote:That's true, but had Alexander died at the Granicus, it would only have been a matter of months after he had been advised to get an heir. So, either he wouldn't have been at the Granicus then, or at the most he would have left a (possibly) pregnant woman behind in Macedonia whose baby would almost certainly, if born at all, have had no chance at all of taking over the kingdom (or probably of surviving infancy). Alexander's acquiescence in Parmenion/Antipater's counsel would have been for nothing.

Please remember that I do not disagree in any way that it was perhaps inadvisable for Alexander to leave Macedonia without producing an heir, or at least taking steps to produce one; but my original comment still stands: inadvisable, yes, but idiotic is too harsh a word in my opinion.

ATB
In my opinion the "ifs" and "buts" don't matter - an heir would still have been better than no heir. Nothing would have been lost with a Macedonian heir, but something was lost without one: the possibility of a stable succession (Macedonian "stable", that is).

Regarding which word to use to describe Alexander's decision, "idiotic" vs "ill-judged" or "inadvisable"...this is as I see it just a matter of personal opinion.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Amyntas

Post by marcus »

the_accursed wrote:Regarding which word to use to describe Alexander's decision, "idiotic" vs "ill-judged" or "inadvisable"...this is as I see it just a matter of personal opinion.
I reckon you're probably right there! :D

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Amyntas

Post by Semiramis »

marcus wrote:
the_accursed wrote:Alexander not fathering a son before the campaign against Persia, on the other hand, was idiotic, and evidence that Alexander was a man entirely unfit to be king.
I think it's a bit harsh to say "idiotic". Ill-judged, perhaps, especially as Alexander was going into battle and was not one to hold back. Having said that:

1. It was twelve years before the lack of an heir became an issue.
2. Perhaps Alexander judged that he could not delay the invasion of Persian lands any longer - certainly not the (absolute minimum) nine months to find out if his child was a son ... and that after (a) finding a suitable wife, and (b) getting her pregnant. After the destruction of Thebes and the clearly forced subjection of Greece and confirmation of the League of Corinth, to leave the "Hellenic Crusade" any longer could have led to all sorts of problems in Greece which might have precluded any invasion. On balance, as a twenty-year-old new king, with designs on immortality, Alexander might not have felt he had the luxury to wait until he had an heir.

I'm not saying that his failure to produce a son was not ill-judged; but idiotic is, I think, a bit harsh.

ATB
More Speculation -

To add to Marcus' points, I don't know that Alexander had as much leeway regarding producing an heir before leaving Macedonia. The plan to invade Asia was Phillip's - not Alexander's. Parmenion had already crossed into Asia minor. On a related note, Macedonia's financial state at the time has been described as "bankrupt". Perhaps the timing of the Persian invasion was not so much under Alexander's control after all. I realize this does not fit with a view of the man as the great Hellenizing avenger with a pothos to fuse and civilize, but why abandon my cynicism now? :)

Later on, when becoming Great King looked to be a viable option, was Macedonia on the top of his priority list? As Accursed and Paralus point out - he did seem to be a man more interested in subjugating a new people and expanding his domain than bringing stability to it. I just wonder if how much his decisions were driven by his own ego. Any man who can command others to worship him as a god... it's a possibility, isn't it? I actually think Alexander was not only concerned with what was acceptable to the Macedonians, but what was acceptable to his empire - of which Macedonia would ultimately form only a small part. By that time, it may have been Alexander's intention to take an Achaemenid princess (or more) into marriage - especially Darius' daughter - and sire an heir by her. I imagine pleasing the Persian nobility was high on the agenda, as was legitimizing his claim in the eyes of the populace. Taking another wife (one not of Achaemenid blood) or siring another heir may have been seen as a challenge to the Achaemenid wife or heir. The marriage to Roxanne may have been due to love or desperate conditions on the ground at the time. Perhaps she was not part of the long term plan when Alexander left for Bactria.

If Alexander was "saving himself" for the right Achaemenid princess, I think it would have been a very crafty political move and showed impressive understanding of Achaemenid and Persian history. Clearly, long-term planning, stability and preventing civil strife are some of the most important duties of a king and in that regard, few things would be as useful as producing a suitable heir. But not just any child. I think there is more to consider here than only the gender of any child of Alexander's. Alexander was probably less parochial than people give him credit for. While his name carries a degree of glamour now and must have with the Macedonians after his death, the Persians were not necessarily as bowled over by his charm as Renault's Bagoas was. They may have put emphasis on the maternal lineage and Achaemenid blood when determining the acceptability of the son of an uncouth barbarian usurper to the throne. Take for example the legitimization of Xerxes after Darius I's usurpation and possible regicide. And Macedonian troops were increasingly being replaced with Asian and half-Asian troops. There is plenty of proof of Alexander's Persianizing and good arguments for why this was a practical rather than a philosophical or whimsical choice. There is the Greek education for the Persian princesses. What do you guys think?

None of this is meant to take anything away from Phillip's marital alliances of course. Alexander must have learned a thing or two from his father about political marriages.

Disclaimer : I do not condone monarchy, wars of aggression, empire, colonialism, feudalism, marriages without love etc. etc. I just think that successful kings, queens, conquerors and emperors need to act in Machiavellian ways, hence the "he should have"s etc.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Amyntas

Post by athenas owl »

The plan to invade Asia was Phillip's - not Alexander's. Parmenion had already crossed into Asia minor. On a related note, Macedonia's financial state at the time has been described as "bankrupt". Perhaps the timing of the Persian invasion was not so much under Alexander's control after all. I realize this does not fit with a view of the man as the great Hellenizing avenger with a pothos to fuse and civilize, but why abandon my cynicism now?
Excellent point. Attalus was already there as well. And things hadn't been going all that well, weren't they cornered up near Troy, if memory serves?
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Amyntas

Post by the_accursed »

Semiramis wrote:More Speculation -

To add to Marcus' points, I don't know that Alexander had as much leeway regarding producing an heir before leaving Macedonia. The plan to invade Asia was Phillip's - not Alexander's. Parmenion had already crossed into Asia minor. On a related note, Macedonia's financial state at the time has been described as "bankrupt". Perhaps the timing of the Persian invasion was not so much under Alexander's control after all. I realize this does not fit with a view of the man as the great Hellenizing avenger with a pothos to fuse and civilize, but why abandon my cynicism now? :)
I agree that money was an important, and underestimated, reason for the invasion. But Alexander had 2 years as king before he left Macedonia, and he wouldn’t have had to stay around to wait for his wives to give birth. The bottom line: if Alexander could conquer Tyre, he could have fathered a Macedonian heir. Even I don't believe the logistics of marriage and fathering and heir was beyond his ability. It's just that he couldn’t be bothered to. I agree that later, once his Persianizing had begun, fathering a Macedonian heir was likely not even on the map.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Amyntas

Post by Semiramis »

Accursed,

I may be confused, but I thought Alexander only had a few months (at most three?) in Pella as King before he went up north to attack the Thracians and Illyrians. Pretty much straight after that he was off to shower the Thebans with his affections. After subjugating the Greeks he was only back to Macedonia for a few months again (maybe around half a year?). Our hero then marched off to Asia never to return. Alexander was outside of Macedonia more than in it in that year and half between his accession and landing in Asia. One might say could have taken a wife during that last few months while preparing his Asian campaign. But there's no guarantee that he would have knocked her up before he left or that it would have been a boy. I like how in the movies all the kings produce a son after a single night of soft-focused slow-motion shagging. But I'm not sure that's how it always goes real life. :)
Nikas
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Amyntas

Post by Nikas »

I guess this all leads back to the original question then, should he not have kept Amyntas alive and with him as a prudent, responsible, and fully Argead and Macedonian King? Yes, even assuming he could show off his sarissa prowess to some Macedonian dame before his Asian world tour, it would have been dicey. I too have to agree that a young prince under Antipater's and Olympia's watchful eye would have kept the Macedonians united, after all it took them a number of years to finally drum up the nerve to trade up to royalty status and the rank and file readily gave their loyalty to the undeserving Arrhidaeus. Yes, there could be the possibility that a boy prince would have to square off with his uncle for supremacy, but I can't imagine that it would get as ugly as it ended up doing.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Amyntas

Post by athenas owl »

It's all speculation. What happened, happened.

I think that is what drives me nuts about the "what if"s....

It's fun, but beyond that, it's just a way to play out one's own assumptions. Though on a more positive note, it also is a way to examine the players at the time, I suppose. This goes for any part of history. As I mentioned a bit ago, Henry V..what if he hadn't died with the baby Hnery VI, well his handlers, anyway, left to..see the War of the Roses and all that. See the Tudors...who, in some ways, I am reminded of when I think of the Argeads...the Plantagenets, too of course.

My question is, who would have been a suitable bride? Which faction should Alexander have favoured? What would have been the ramifications?

And again, was Amyntas innocent of the charges? After all, he had been king, booted out by his uncle and well treated no doubt. But good treatment certainly never stopped someone from trying to grab the brass ring.
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Amyntas

Post by the_accursed »

Semiramis wrote:Accursed,

I may be confused, but I thought Alexander only had a few months (at most three?) in Pella as King before he went up north to attack the Thracians and Illyrians. Pretty much straight after that he was off to shower the Thebans with his affections. After subjugating the Greeks he was only back to Macedonia for a few months again (maybe around half a year?). Our hero then marched off to Asia never to return. Alexander was outside of Macedonia more than in it in that year and half between his accession and landing in Asia. One might say could have taken a wife during that last few months while preparing his Asian campaign. But there's no guarantee that he would have knocked her up before he left or that it would have been a boy. I like how in the movies all the kings produce a son after a single night of soft-focused slow-motion shagging. But I'm not sure that's how it always goes real life. :)

Alexander would not have had to arrange it all himself. He could have delegated the task of finding him suitable women to chose from. Then he could have married a number of them and made them pregnant. Had none of them produced a son, he could have sent for them.

Yes Alexander was busy. So was Philip. He had a collapsing kingdom to revive. Didn't prevent him from fathering children. If Alexander could keep his army fed in hostile territory for 10 years, he could have fathered a Macedonian heir. Had the will been there, he'd have found a way.
Post Reply