Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

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

Re: Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

Post by Paralus »

ruthaki wrote:Everyone has their own opinions of Ptolemy and I've even read some that called him 'self-serving'.
Marcus is correct: of course he was self serving. One could adduce many examples from the "hijacking" of Alexander's corpse to his cynical espousing of the "freedom of the Greeks" (certainly no less cynical than Antigonus). On that latter, being disappointed of his ambitions in Greece in 308 he settled with Cassander on terms that saw him keep the Greek cities he was holding - along with garrisons in key poleis. Ptolemy was little different to the other Successors: he sought the lot as means and opportunity allowed. Diodorus is clear on this (20.37.4):
Because of the distinction of her descent Cassander and Lysimachus, as well as Antigonus and Ptolemy and in general all the leaders who were most important after Alexander's death, sought her hand; for each of them, hoping that the Macedonians would follow the lead of this marriage, was seeking alliance with the royal house in order thus to gain supreme power for himself.
I don't recall Ptolemy ever refusing Cleopatra's hand in marriage and the above claims he sought such (along with others). The reason the marriage did not take place is because Antigonus had the ageing "legitimacy-in-waiting" murdered before Ptolemy could consummate the proposal (20.37.5-6)

Many cite the Curtius passage along with Pausanias 1.6.2 as evidence that Ptolemy was a son of Philip II. Whilst Pausanias might claim "the Macedonians consider" Ptolemy the son of Philip, the Macedonians who counted - those involved in the succession crisis - knew nothing of the sort. It is inconceivable that both Alexander's bastard Heracles and the mentally deficient Arrhidaeus could be proposed whilst a fully competent supposed half brother - available and at hand - was passed over in absolute silence.
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: Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:I don't recall Ptolemy ever refusing Cleopatra's hand in marriage and the above claims he sought such (along with others). The reason the marriage did not take place is because Antigonus had the ageing "legitimacy-in-waiting" murdered before Ptolemy could consummate the proposal (20.37.5-6)
Thanks for the correction on that, Paralus. I was writing in a rush, and assumed that Ruth's comment that he declined was correct. Anyway, as you know, I'm not so good on post-323 ... :D
Parlus wrote:It is inconceivable that both Alexander's bastard Heracles and the mentally deficient Arrhidaeus could be proposed whilst a fully competent supposed half brother - available and at hand - was passed over in absolute silence.
That's a very good point!

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
hiphys
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:59 am

Re: Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

Post by hiphys »

In Theocritus,Idyll XVII there is perhaps a hint of the dubious birth of Ptolemy I. Here the poet calls the father of Ptolemy II 'son of Lagus', but, after a comparison between Alexander and his companion Ptolemy I, he says:
"Both of them are descendants (prògonos) of strong Heracles, both of them go back finally to Heracles" (vv.26-27).
Theocritus is using here the allusive technique widely spread among Hellenistic poets. He don't says explicitly:" Ptolemy I IS Philip's son", but he connects his descent to the royal Macedonian house ancestor Heracles. Therefore some scholars believe that Ptolemy I originally wasn't connected to the Argeadae through his (dubious) father Philip, but through his mother Arsinoe, who was a relative of the Argeadae (perhaps she was a cousin of Philip).
The Idyll XVII is dated to 278\7 (or, at least, 273\2), well before the reign of Ptolemy III (246-222 B.C.).
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

Post by agesilaos »

Doh! Still, no contemporary claim and one wonders if this claim of Heraklid descent, which seems to say that the lines are discreet, was then confused to make them lineally related, probably a deliberate move. At the time the Seleukids had a story of Apollonian descent and this would seem a counter myth.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

Post by marcus »

agesilaos wrote:Doh! Still, no contemporary claim and one wonders if this claim of Heraklid descent, which seems to say that the lines are discreet, was then confused to make them lineally related, probably a deliberate move. At the time the Seleukids had a story of Apollonian descent and this would seem a counter myth.
That's what I would have surmised, Agesilaos. Ptolemy wasnts legitimacy, and what better way that to claim the same ancestral descent as Alexander. The Argeads, after all, weren't the only ones to claim descent from Heracles, so I doubt anyone would have gone "Aha! That means that Ptolemy and Alexander were related ... there go Philip and his overactive loins, again ..." :D
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: Ptolemy, son of Philip II ?

Post by Paralus »

hiphys wrote:He don't says explicitly:" Ptolemy I IS Philip's son", but he connects his descent to the royal Macedonian house ancestor Heracles. Therefore some scholars believe that Ptolemy I originally wasn't connected to the Argeadae through his (dubious) father Philip, but through his mother Arsinoe, who was a relative of the Argeadae (perhaps she was a cousin of Philip).
The Idyll XVII is dated to 278\7 (or, at least, 273\2), well before the reign of Ptolemy III (246-222 B.C.).
The Ptolemy involved is Ptolemy II as his mother, the mere mortal Berenice, is named at lines 34-37. His father (Soter) is Lageidas Ptolemaios. The poem merely claims a lineage to Heracles for the Ptolemies not a lineage from Philip II. The poet actually states that Alexander, "affectionately", sits alongside Ptolemy I as "a friend" ( phila eidōs hedriaei). Had there been a blood relationship he might expected to sit alongside as a brother.

Both Aelian (who reports the exposing of Ptolemy by Lagos) and Pausanias claim a Macedonian origin for the story of Ptolemy's bastard status and Philip II's supposed paternity of Ptolemy. A story linking Ptolemy I to Philip II would make sense for Keraunos whose claim to the Macedonian throne was poor to say the least. Yet the Macedonians acclaimed him. If so, and if Kleitarchos is the source of Curtius' passage, this points to a later date for his history. Again, it certainly can't have been current during the succession crisis else Ptolemy will have been the Macedonians' logical choice.
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
Post Reply