Amyntas

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Amyntas

Post by Semiramis »

Nikas,

Are you talking about Amyntas whose father was king before Phillip? Then technically speaking - Amyntas had a more legitimate claim to the Argead throne than Alexander, didn't he? When Amyntas' father Perdiccus III died, Amyntas should have become king. Phillip, to put it bluntly, stole the throne from him because he was a helpless child. Perhaps Phillip's reign was stable enough not to consider Amyntas a threat. Alternatively, he was afraid of the fallout from executing the true heir. In contrast, Alexander's reign in the first few weeks was anything but secure. I don't see how Alexander could have argued that he had more right to the throne than Amyntas. A faction could have rallied around Amyntas. So, in conclusion, I think Alexander murdered Amyntas because his claim was pretty solid.

Similarly as a faction could have also rallied around Euridike's baby - with pure Macedonian blood, no less - with someone else as regent. If Alexander didn't know about the murder of Euridike and her baby beforehand (unlikely IMHO), I doubt he would have been displeased when he found out. It feels a bit dicey to simply attribute it to Olympias and her emotions. Perhaps the Greeks historians with their experience of male-only democracy underestimated the brutality of succession politics in a monarchy - including the crucial role royal women played. What has been blamed on Olympias' jealous and passionate nature was quite possibly a politically-motivated cold-blooded decision just like the execution of Amyntas. Even before Alexander, Argead succession politics had never been anything but dirty.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Amyntas

Post by marcus »

Semiramis wrote: I don't see how Alexander could have argued that he had more right to the throne than Amyntas. A faction could have rallied around Amyntas. So, in conclusion, I think Alexander murdered Amyntas because his claim was pretty solid.
Alexander's argument will have been that his father was the most recent king, and therefore he had a claim, whereas Amyntas' father was only an earlier king. The grandfather of both of them was a Macedonian king. One could argue that, therefore, neither had a better claim than the other, or even that Alexander had a greater claim. Swings and roundabouts. Having said that, Amyntas will indeed have been killed because he had a decent claim to the throne.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Amyntas

Post by athenas owl »

Wasn't Alexander's line from a cadet branch in the first place, going back to Amyntas III (father was Arrhidaeus?), who was the grandson or something (I'm not at a place where I can be sure) of the brother of a king, a brother who had managed to keep his head down while the rest of the family killed each other off.

I may not have the right king...but it happened that way.

It seems that the throne belonged to the Argeads as a clan, not actually a specific line in the Argeads..hence the seemingly constant fraticide and all the other "cides". :D
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Amyntas

Post by marcus »

athenas owl wrote:Wasn't Alexander's line from a cadet branch in the first place, going back to Amyntas III (father was Arrhidaeus?), who was the grandson or something (I'm not at a place where I can be sure) of the brother of a king, a brother who had managed to keep his head down while the rest of the family killed each other off.

I may not have the right king...but it happened that way.

It seems that the throne belonged to the Argeads as a clan, not actually a specific line in the Argeads..hence the seemingly constant fraticide and all the other "cides". :D
Yeah, something like that. Which all adds up to the fact that Amyntas would have had rather dodgy grounds for asserting that he had a "better" claim to the throne than Alexander. Still, the danger was there, because he still had a valid claim.

One thing to remember, of course, is that succession by primogeniture was not actually a rule, even if it was practised more often than not. Just because Amyntas' father had been king, who was older than Philip was, didn't actually give him a better claim to the throne.

(We could draw an analogy with England in the 11th century - William the Conqueror made his *second* son heir to the English throne, while his eldest "merely" became Duke of Normandy.)

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 »

I'm sure the cogency of the two arguments would have strongly correlated with the level of personal gain for the individual considering them. :)
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Amyntas

Post by marcus »

Semiramis wrote:I'm sure the cogency of the two arguments would have strongly correlated with the level of personal gain for the individual considering them. :)
Indeed, and the cogency of each argument also depended on who was wielding the knife ... :D
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:Indeed, and the cogency of each argument also depended on who was wielding the knife ... :D
Ah yes... Fun and games Argead style. :)
Nikas
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Amyntas

Post by Nikas »

Semiramis wrote:Nikas,

Are you talking about Amyntas whose father was king before Phillip? Then technically speaking - Amyntas had a more legitimate claim to the Argead throne than Alexander, didn't he? When Amyntas' father Perdiccus III died, Amyntas should have become king. Phillip, to put it bluntly, stole the throne from him because he was a helpless child. Perhaps Phillip's reign was stable enough not to consider Amyntas a threat. Alternatively, he was afraid of the fallout from executing the true heir. In contrast, Alexander's reign in the first few weeks was anything but secure. I don't see how Alexander could have argued that he had more right to the throne than Amyntas. A faction could have rallied around Amyntas. So, in conclusion, I think Alexander murdered Amyntas because his claim was pretty solid.

Similarly as a faction could have also rallied around Euridike's baby - with pure Macedonian blood, no less - with someone else as regent. If Alexander didn't know about the murder of Euridike and her baby beforehand (unlikely IMHO), I doubt he would have been displeased when he found out. It feels a bit dicey to simply attribute it to Olympias and her emotions. Perhaps the Greeks historians with their experience of male-only democracy underestimated the brutality of succession politics in a monarchy - including the crucial role royal women played. What has been blamed on Olympias' jealous and passionate nature was quite possibly a politically-motivated cold-blooded decision just like the execution of Amyntas. Even before Alexander, Argead succession politics had never been anything but dirty.
Hi Semiramis,

Yes, indeed that Amyntas. I don't know about a more "legitimate" claim, as others have already said Philip II was king for many years (rightly or wrongly), and Alexander by this point would probably have had a better claim than Amyntas just on this fact, let alone his own accomplishments by this time (regent, independent battle commander, Chaeronea, etc.). I truly believe that Alexander could have kept Amyntas along for the ride without any serious threat to his throne.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Amyntas

Post by Semiramis »

Nikas wrote:Hi Semiramis,

Yes, indeed that Amyntas. I don't know about a more "legitimate" claim, as others have already said Philip II was king for many years (rightly or wrongly), and Alexander by this point would probably have had a better claim than Amyntas just on this fact, let alone his own accomplishments by this time (regent, independent battle commander, Chaeronea, etc.). I truly believe that Alexander could have kept Amyntas along for the ride without any serious threat to his throne.
Then why kill him? It seems we've come full circle. :) Do you have any proposals?
Nikas
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Amyntas

Post by Nikas »

Semiramis wrote: Then why kill him? It seems we've come full circle. :) Do you have any proposals?
Yes indeed we have :) My proposal would be to keep him alongside and close, let him have a "minor" command, and if he (Alexander) doesn't have a son at a reasonable age when he get's ill or killed in combat, then the Macedonians at least have a ready made king all the marshals could rally to.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Amyntas

Post by Semiramis »

Nikas wrote:Yes indeed we have :) My proposal would be to keep him alongside and close, let him have a "minor" command, and if he (Alexander) doesn't have a son at a reasonable age when he get's ill or killed in combat, then the Macedonians at least have a ready made king all the marshals could rally to.
Why do think he didn't do that? I mean, what do you think his motivation was in killing Amyntas? In the scenario you propose, Alexander would have had to put the stability of his kingdom (and later empire) before his own ego. Does he come across as the sort to do that?
Nikas
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Amyntas

Post by Nikas »

Semiramis wrote: Why do think he didn't do that? I mean, what do you think his motivation was in killing Amyntas? In the scenario you propose, Alexander would have had to put the stability of his kingdom (and later empire) before his own ego. Does he come across as the sort to do that?
He killed Amyntas because of course he was afraid that there was some possibility that Amyntas was a threat to his throne. The Macedonians had a long history of rival claimants and aspirants to the throne and foreign interference into their kingdom. Philip II himself had to deal with Athenian or Thracian backed rivals, and this must have obviously overruled all other concerns for Alexander. I for one, sitting with the hindsight of history, just think he could have been more magnamious here, especially as he probably had Amyntas right under his thumb in any case. As for his ego, he did after all leave the kingdom without a clear heir and from that day forward the decline began.
Nikas
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Amyntas

Post by Nikas »

Nikas wrote:
Semiramis wrote: Why do think he didn't do that? I mean, what do you think his motivation was in killing Amyntas? In the scenario you propose, Alexander would have had to put the stability of his kingdom (and later empire) before his own ego. Does he come across as the sort to do that?
He killed Amyntas because of course he was afraid that there was some possibility that Amyntas was a threat to his throne. The Macedonians had a long history of rival claimants and aspirants to the throne and foreign interference into their kingdom. Philip II himself had to deal with Athenian or Thracian backed rivals, and this must have obviously overruled all other concerns for Alexander. I for one, sitting with the hindsight of history, just think he could have been more magnamious here, especially as he probably had Amyntas right under his thumb in any case. As for his ego, he did after all leave the kingdom without a clear heir and from the moment of his death the decline began.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Amyntas

Post by Semiramis »

Nikas wrote:
Semiramis wrote: Why do think he didn't do that? I mean, what do you think his motivation was in killing Amyntas? In the scenario you propose, Alexander would have had to put the stability of his kingdom (and later empire) before his own ego. Does he come across as the sort to do that?
He killed Amyntas because of course he was afraid that there was some possibility that Amyntas was a threat to his throne. The Macedonians had a long history of rival claimants and aspirants to the throne and foreign interference into their kingdom. Philip II himself had to deal with Athenian or Thracian backed rivals, and this must have obviously overruled all other concerns for Alexander. I for one, sitting with the hindsight of history, just think he could have been more magnamious here, especially as he probably had Amyntas right under his thumb in any case. As for his ego, he did after all leave the kingdom without a clear heir and from that day forward the decline began.
Phah... Some might say the decline began the moment he threw that spear on Asia... ;)
Post Reply