Logic Or Denial?

[kennyxx]

I may make myself very controvertial here in Pothos. I have been reading and trying to make sense with Philips murder.I would have to say Alexander at least knew about it even had something to do with it. With all the theories. Philotas, Parmenio and even Darius handy death. To assume Alexander totally blameless is to assume Alexander ignorant and or blind to what was going on.As with ant politician or ruler to have any success and the success Alexander had needed a certain amount of ruthlesness and calculating behaviour.Darius had no purpose at all to be left alive only a focal point for any resistance. When Alexander heard of darius arrest he did give chase. But he also paused for 3 days Why?Now Philip people argue it against Alexanders nature to have Philip killed. But on reflection were Philip to have lived where would that leave Alexander. Maybe command of Philips cavalry on the right or left in Macedonia as regent?Ok Philip may not have achieved as far as Alexander but had Philip lived as old as Parmenio Alexander would have had no glory at all. In my opinion Philip had to go and the Macedonian royalty from centuries before was rife with murder and assasinations. Even Philip indulged. So why not Alexander.Some would say he have known but my own thought is he was directly involved. People know how I feel about Alexander but I will not try to cover what seems obvious. And a final thought with this is that Pausanius was killed on the spot another convenience for any other conspirators that may be revealed under interrogation.Indeed I believe Alexander was Great. A great Commander a great organiser and above all a man with his eye always on the ball and maticulous in what he was doing. Other wise we must say he was a little stupid or ignorant.Cleitus I would argue un planned that was just a tiff that got out of hand with sharp objects and booze.Kenny

[Efstathios]

I dont think that Alexander as we know him and as he was portrayed by Arrian,Plutarch,Ptolemy e.t.c would kill his own father in order to get all the glory in Asia. He may have killed one of his best friends while he was drunk,and even Parmenion, but i dont believe he would kill his father.Afterall,he didnt have a specific timetable for his vision.He would eventually become King and do what he wanted to. And there is another thing: Parmenion who was extremely loyal to Philip,would never go along with Alexander if he had the slightest suspicion that Alexander was behind Philip's death.And if there was such a possibility i think that Parmenion would know. The most probable scenario is that Olympias had Philip murdered.

[Efstathios]

I dont think that Alexander as we know him and as he was portrayed by Arrian,Plutarch,Ptolemy e.t.c would kill his own father in order to get all the glory in Asia. He may have killed one of his best friends while he was drunk,and even Parmenion, but i dont believe he would kill his father.Afterall,he didnt have a specific timetable for his vision.He would eventually become King and do what he wanted to. And there is another thing: Parmenion who was extremely loyal to Philip,would never go along with Alexander if he had the slightest suspicion that Alexander was behind Philip's death.And if there was such a possibility i think that Parmenion would know. The most probable scenario is that Olympias had Philip murdered.

[ruthaki]

I've sat in the theatre at Aigai a number of times trying to visualize the assassination and get-away. It beats me how the murderer ever figured he could escape and of course he didn't, even though there were supposedly horses waiting.I don't believe Alexander would have known or condoned the killing of his father. However Olympias is a major suspect. She didn't do it on her own, though, there was probably Persian and Athenian money back it up and she was just one of the 'tools' used by the conspirators. (She had good reason to hate Philip, so why not?)

[ruthaki]

I've sat in the theatre at Aigai a number of times trying to visualize the assassination and get-away. It beats me how the murderer ever figured he could escape and of course he didn't, even though there were supposedly horses waiting.I don't believe Alexander would have known or condoned the killing of his father. However Olympias is a major suspect. She didn't do it on her own, though, there was probably Persian and Athenian money back it up and she was just one of the 'tools' used by the conspirators. (She had good reason to hate Philip, so why not?)

[Paralus]

"The most probable scenario is that Olympias had Philip murdered."
With which I'd agree. In almost all such circumstances, we are best served by divining who is most benefited by the action. Without doubt Alexander benefits in as much as the Macedonian "assembly" of the army is prevailed upon to make him king by acclamation.
The person who benefits most though is the seriously marginalised Olympias. A woman who GÇô if history had taken Philip's planned course GÇô was about to be assigned to the irrelevant position of Plenipotentiary of the Periphery. The murder of Philip and the ascension of Alexander (in her view) would securely place her back where she clearly wished to be: the centre of power within the court and monarchy. If she was not to be "Queen" then she would most certainly be the King's mum: the royal matriarch. And a poisonous piece of work she was into the bargain GÇô the purges that follow all bear her murderous matriarchal mitt-prints.
I doubt that Parmenio had much choice. The assassination is significant in its timing. Parmenio and Attalus are in Hellespontine Phrygia awaiting the monarch. The first news of it that Parmenio would have received was from the officers bearing both the news and his orders (from Alexander/Olympias) to demonstrate his loyalty with the eradication of the fiercely hated Attalus. Parmenio - though immensely experienced and capable - was not about do a Caeasar by crossing the Strymon.How much did Alexander know? We'll never know. I do though believe him capable of conceiving of it GÇô if not necessarily the carrying out of it. His later actions with respect to Callisthenes, Philotas and Parmenio show him as only too capable of removing those who "cross" his will.As well, I have severe doubts that he'd have comfortably stayed home (Antipater style) while his most intense competitor (as Alexander saw it) GÇô Philip GÇô conquered the East. That end may have been achieved GÇô but only after lopping his legs and chaining his torso to a pillar in Pella.Paralus.

[Paralus]

"The most probable scenario is that Olympias had Philip murdered."
With which I'd agree. In almost all such circumstances, we are best served by divining who is most benefited by the action. Without doubt Alexander benefits in as much as the Macedonian "assembly" of the army is prevailed upon to make him king by acclamation.
The person who benefits most though is the seriously marginalised Olympias. A woman who GÇô if history had taken Philip's planned course GÇô was about to be assigned to the irrelevant position of Plenipotentiary of the Periphery. The murder of Philip and the ascension of Alexander (in her view) would securely place her back where she clearly wished to be: the centre of power within the court and monarchy. If she was not to be "Queen" then she would most certainly be the King's mum: the royal matriarch. And a poisonous piece of work she was into the bargain GÇô the purges that follow all bear her murderous matriarchal mitt-prints.
I doubt that Parmenio had much choice. The assassination is significant in its timing. Parmenio and Attalus are in Hellespontine Phrygia awaiting the monarch. The first news of it that Parmenio would have received was from the officers bearing both the news and his orders (from Alexander/Olympias) to demonstrate his loyalty with the eradication of the fiercely hated Attalus. Parmenio - though immensely experienced and capable - was not about do a Caeasar by crossing the Strymon.How much did Alexander know? We'll never know. I do though believe him capable of conceiving of it GÇô if not necessarily the carrying out of it. His later actions with respect to Callisthenes, Philotas and Parmenio show him as only too capable of removing those who "cross" his will.As well, I have severe doubts that he'd have comfortably stayed home (Antipater style) while his most intense competitor (as Alexander saw it) GÇô Philip GÇô conquered the East. That end may have been achieved GÇô but only after lopping his legs and chaining his torso to a pillar in Pella.Paralus.

[kennyxx]

Michael You nailed one point with all the tricky and somewhat unpopular things Alexander did.Philotas, Parmenio, Philip. All these so called events. The main beneficiary was Alexander. All calculated and somewhat dangerous risks but we know Alexander was the ultimate risk taker although calculated.Atha your comment about Alexander waiting till Philip died. WE know Alexander was always hungry for glory and eternal flame. Were he to wait till Philip died he would be 40 plus with nothing left to achieve. Alexander was ready to rule at 20 I doubt hed wait 20 years it was not in his nature.A further point with the way Philip and Alexanders relationship had become strained. By the time Alexander was 40. Philips other son by Cleopatra would be 20. By that time I doubt Alexanders hold on the throne be steady. Do we really believe Alexander sit back and wait and see?I do love Alexander but to say he didnt know is folly. And realistically he must have known more. Also in perspective such actions were not new. So for Alexander to do it makes him pretty usual. Sometimes its wise to take away the gloss and the fluff. We all know he was brilliant but also the guy wasnt Mr nice guy he was a ruthless and ambitious man.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Michael You nailed one point with all the tricky and somewhat unpopular things Alexander did.Philotas, Parmenio, Philip. All these so called events. The main beneficiary was Alexander. All calculated and somewhat dangerous risks but we know Alexander was the ultimate risk taker although calculated.Atha your comment about Alexander waiting till Philip died. WE know Alexander was always hungry for glory and eternal flame. Were he to wait till Philip died he would be 40 plus with nothing left to achieve. Alexander was ready to rule at 20 I doubt hed wait 20 years it was not in his nature.A further point with the way Philip and Alexanders relationship had become strained. By the time Alexander was 40. Philips other son by Cleopatra would be 20. By that time I doubt Alexanders hold on the throne be steady. Do we really believe Alexander sit back and wait and see?I do love Alexander but to say he didnt know is folly. And realistically he must have known more. Also in perspective such actions were not new. So for Alexander to do it makes him pretty usual. Sometimes its wise to take away the gloss and the fluff. We all know he was brilliant but also the guy wasnt Mr nice guy he was a ruthless and ambitious man.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Without Philips death. I would say there would be no Alexander The Great

[kennyxx]

Without Philips death. I would say there would be no Alexander The Great

[Athanasios]

Sorry, Kenny.It wasn't me that suggested that Alexander would wait in vain for his father to die...Olympias: prime suspect AND loving, possessive mother. With this unconditional love she would have organised the assassination WITHOUT exposing Alexander to the plot (think of what lengths a mother would go througfh to protect her child. Do not forget she believed Alexander to be divine).Yes, Alexander benefited indirectly, but I doubt he was the instigator.Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Sorry, Kenny.It wasn't me that suggested that Alexander would wait in vain for his father to die...Olympias: prime suspect AND loving, possessive mother. With this unconditional love she would have organised the assassination WITHOUT exposing Alexander to the plot (think of what lengths a mother would go througfh to protect her child. Do not forget she believed Alexander to be divine).Yes, Alexander benefited indirectly, but I doubt he was the instigator.Regards,
Atha

[marcus]

Plus, Parmenion knew which side his bread was buttered; and the elevation of members of his family, and his faction, to some of the top commands (Philotas to lead the Companions, Nicanor to lead the hypaspists, to name just his sons), was a useful way of getting him onside.That's not to say that I necessarily believe that Alexander *did* have a hand in Philip's death; but Alexander certainly made sure that it was in Parmenion's interests to accept him as king and to follow him.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Plus, Parmenion knew which side his bread was buttered; and the elevation of members of his family, and his faction, to some of the top commands (Philotas to lead the Companions, Nicanor to lead the hypaspists, to name just his sons), was a useful way of getting him onside.That's not to say that I necessarily believe that Alexander *did* have a hand in Philip's death; but Alexander certainly made sure that it was in Parmenion's interests to accept him as king and to follow him.ATBMarcus