Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[spitamenes]

Without turning this into a JFK style mystery whodunit thriller, can someone please tell me who the "power~brokers" "behind the scenes" were? I'm not understanding if its supposed to be real people or if its the proverbial "them", .. like the c.i.a.

[spitamenes]

It just doesn't seem to have been clarified who these power players are supposed to be.

[Nicator]

Spitamenes,

Without turning this into a JFK style mystery whodunit thriller, can someone please tell me who the "power~brokers" "behind the scenes" were? I'm not understanding if its supposed to be real people or if its the proverbial "them", .. like the c.i.a.

Hehehe...not thinking of a CIA type of organization here, but rather big money, behind the scenes, international types that had big financial interests perhaps in seeing the campaign through to some logical and realistic conclusion...i.e..the subjugation of the entire Persian empire. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that merely annexing the realm of Asian Minor would be a fools errand and doomed to ultimate backfiring perhaps within 5 years of its completion. These 'types' are always present in every age and every region to pull the strings and make the moves. You seldom hear of them or know of their existence...but they're always there. Hence, the phrase, 'unknown and unrecorded power-brokers'. I suppose you or others will jump all over the idea of Philip financing his own campaigns and dynastic ambitions. This is apparently factual, but not in any way mutually exclusive. There were lots of investors with interests of their own. Freeing up the money of Asia was one way for everyone to become rich. It would open up the economies of the world like never before. This was the end result. Regardless of whether or not it actually happened that way.


Marcus,
Ha! You always seem intent on dragging me kicking and screaming into an argument.

But there is no indication that Philip's physical capabilities were impaired by his wounds. After all, he won Chaeronea only two years before his death. And his leading general in Asia at the time of his death was a man who was almost certainly some good few years older than Philip. So if people accepted Parmenion as a general, why would they not accept Philip? I cannot see how anyone would have considered him unfit to command the invasion of Asia. And there is no indication that the invasion was going to be a long and protracted affair.

One cannot argue that Philip was as 'up to the task' physically as his electrifying son. One eyed and hobbled...this was a recipe for disaster in a tight pinch. Repeatedly we hear of Alexander getting off horse and attacking on foot. In this type of warfare, the warlord's physique was paramount to success in close combat. Especially repeatedly where, in many situations, Alexander was immersed in the thick of things and would need to have 'both eyes' for total awareness. And was it Philip that won Chaeronea or was it Alexander's dazzling raid on the Sacred Band? Maybe a little bit of both? And it wouldn't take a genius to comprehend that the invasion of Asia on the scale that was likely being contemplated by this clique of power-brokers could and more than likely 'would' take years to complete. Even with the most agile and gifted of commanders, which Alexander certainly was.

But my contention is that Philip was not muddying the succession line. Even if Cleopatra's child was a boy (and as Justin is the only source who says that it was, it is highly dubious - and I assume you will now say something about the source material, but the fact is that, had it been a boy, the sources would have said something, more unanimously, and the other sources all say it was a girl), how does that muddy the succession?

It's an unknowable thing as to whether he'd muddied it up. Alexander was likely being pushed to move over along with Olympias. This tension was real and without reservation or doubt. As witnessed by the incident between Attalus and Alexander in the banquet hall and the comments aimed at both Olympias and Alexander in reference to him being dubbed a 'bastard'. If this accusation caught on and Olympias position as a 'former' wife became sacrosanct, then Alexander would certainly have serious trouble trying to legitimately claim the throne down the road. Philip had to go. So, that child, boy or girl, was largely irrelevant by the time Philip got the dagger. If that child was indeed a boy, then the seriousness of the situation would have been all the more imperative to remove Philip AND his child immediately.

Nicator wrote:
Not sure why you would say my analysis doesn't hold true. What analysis?


Well, I suppose you've just answered that one ...

(Sorry, that was a bit cheap.)

...er, yeah, cheap would be an understatement. But my point was that I wasn't making any analysis...just provoking thought on Philip's removal. But your analysis...hhmmm??

Nicator wrote:
The perspective I'm angling at here is that since Philip was knocked off, it was a failure. His actions may have put him on the wrong side of the power-brokers behind the scenes. And that may have been his downfall.


There is no way that anyone can conclude that Philip's marriage to Cleopatra was a failure. Cleopatra gave him a useful ally in Attalus, and she gave him a child. That's a success. You cannot call it a failure if, according to your interpretation, someone else didn't like it.

Anyway, who were these power-brokers who were so dissatisfied with Philip's marriage to Cleopatra? Parmenion, who was happy for Attalus to marry his daughter, thus allying himself to Philip's new father-in-law? Hmm, can't be him, then. Maybe Antipater, I suppose, but you'll need to explain why he would have been disgruntled, because it isn't enough to say that he might have been without explaining why. Who else is in the frame?

Philip was left on the ground...dead. What more can I say about whether or not his 'marriage' was a success? It likely sealed his fate. Although, in the interim period between his marriage and his demise, your point is valid and underwhelming. As for the rest of this concerning who these power-brokers were...see above.

I do indeed use the word "assassinated", but I will happily say "murdered" instead if it makes you feel better. But again you appear to contradict yourself. It can't be "just a murder by a jealous lover", and at the same time be an orchestrated removal of Philip by these "unknown power-brokers", hence an "assassination". It has to be one or the other.

It doesn't make me happy or sad whether you call it murder or assassination. All we can know is that he ended up dead. I haven't contradicted anything. My original contention was that Philip was allowed to be removed. It's another theory extrapolated from the evidence. Whether the Pausanias acted alone with jealous motivation only or had help in contriving the whole carefully orchestrated plot from the setup to the escape horses is impossible to know.

[spitamenes]

who exactly killed Pausanias? Was it Philips royal guard who ran him down? (Sorry, my sources a nowhere near me, and I can't recall if it was Philips personal guard or another group of men)

[Nicator]

who exactly killed Pausanias? Was it Philips royal guard who ran him down? (Sorry, my sources a nowhere near me, and I can't recall if it was Philips personal guard or another group of men)

There were 3 members of the Royal Guard, if I recall correctly. Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Attalus (son of Andromenes)...according to Green.

[Paralus]

who exactly killed Pausanias? Was it Philips royal guard who ran him down? (Sorry, my sources a nowhere near me, and I can't recall if it was Philips personal guard or another group of men)

Actually "Royal Guard" is quite apt. Diodorus, in his description of Philip's murder, indiscriminately uses doruphorous (16.93.1; 94.3) and somatophylakes (94.4) to describe the guards about Philip. Pausanias, who knifes Philip, is amongst these "doryphoroi" and is called somatophylax along with Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus. The term is used here in the sense of bodyguard or guard for neither of the last three are attested amongst the seven (somatophylakes) until later in Alexander's reign. Pausanias too is not one of these seven high advisors to / protectors of the king for it is hardly to be thought that he could be so baltantly sexually assaulted by Attalus and his Muleteers if he were so. This is clumsy terminology for the royal hypaspists or agema of the hypaspists - another of the king's guard units.

Arrian (or Ptolemy his source more likely) sheds the light on this when he describes the troops sent home to..er.. procreate. These are led by a certain Ptolemy son of Seleukos who is described as somatophulakon ton basilikon or a "royal bodyguard". He cannot be one of the seven as he later dies as a taxiarch at Issos and one hardly suspects he left as one of the seven to return as a taxiarch, thus surrendering his position amongst the top seven nobles in the kingdom. More likely he was one of the "somatophylakes" that are noted elsewhere: "he took the somatophylakes, the hypaspists, the archers, and Agrianians" (4.3.2); "taking 700 of the somatophylakes and the hypaspists" (4.30.3). Thus Philip's " royal guards" - the royal hypaspists or "somatophylakes" chased down the killer.

[marcus]

who exactly killed Pausanias? Was it Philips royal guard who ran him down? (Sorry, my sources a nowhere near me, and I can't recall if it was Philips personal guard or another group of men)

There were 3 members of the Royal Guard, if I recall correctly. Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Attalus (son of Andromenes)...according to Green.

Although it isn't explicitly stated that this Attalus was the son of Andromenes, Green is most likely correct, considering what we know of the careers of the sons of Andromenes. Most others support this view.

If I were you, I would link these three to your shadowy eminences grises - why was it that these three were the only ones who reacted to the murder? And, once Pausanias was tripped up by the tree root, why did they kill him immediately rather than bringing him back for a trial? Perhaps he was silenced so that he wouldn't reveal the names of the people who had put him up to the murder, thus revealing the Illuminati-style intrigues that were manipulating the course of world events? To have reacted as quickly as they did, the three bodyguards must have been forewarned, already holding orders to ensure that Pausanias didn't survive, which means that they were in the employ of Blofeld ...

Hmm, it's a shame that SPECTRE comes from a Latin rather than a Greek work, because if it came from Greek, we could even suggest that my use of the name Blofeld was more than just a flippant one.

Just trying to help you out ...

ATB

[Paralus]

Although it isn't explicitly stated that this Attalus was the son of Andromenes, Green is most likely correct, considering what we know of the careers of the sons of Andromenes. Most others support this view.

Aside from Hammond who makes one of those strained cases of his for this being Attalus returned from Asia. In this long drawn bow of an argument we must make Leonnatus and Perdiccas aged somewhere in their thirties to suit their elevated positions. He does not mention how the pair took their subsequent demotion and the wait for (re)promotion.

One wonders how Attalus avoided Alexander in the immediate aftermath. Clearly he took the first flight from Thessaloniki to Abydus where he was met by Parmenion who'd missed the whole shebang....

If I were you, I would link these three to your shadowy eminences grises - why was it that these three were the only ones who reacted to the murder? And, once Pausanias was tripped up by the tree root, why did they kill him immediately rather than bringing him back for a trial? Perhaps he was silenced so that he wouldn't reveal the names of the people who had put him up to the murder, thus revealing the Illuminati-style intrigues that were manipulating the course of world events? To have reacted as quickly as they did, the three bodyguards must have been forewarned, already holding orders to ensure that Pausanias didn't survive, which means that they were in the employ of Blofeld ...

Hmm, it's a shame that SPECTRE comes from a Latin rather than a Greek work, because if it came from Greek, we could even suggest that my use of the name Blofeld was more than just a flippant one.

Just trying to help you out ...

ATB

Nothing like stirring the plot....

[spitamenes]

Philip = JFK;
Pausanias = Lee Harvey Oswald;
Royal Guard = Jack Ruby;

....I just cracked this baby wide open!

[marcus]

Although it isn't explicitly stated that this Attalus was the son of Andromenes, Green is most likely correct, considering what we know of the careers of the sons of Andromenes. Most others support this view.

Aside from Hammond who makes one of those strained cases of his for this being Attalus returned from Asia. In this long drawn bow of an argument we must make Leonnatus and Perdiccas aged somewhere in their thirties to suit their elevated positions. He does not mention how the pair took their subsequent demotion and the wait for (re)promotion.

One wonders how Attalus avoided Alexander in the immediate aftermath. Clearly he took the first flight from Thessaloniki to Abydus where he was met by Parmenion who'd missed the whole shebang....

Yes, well, I rather ignored Hammond on that one. If it were Attalus-returned-from-Asia, It's also strange that the man who benefited most from Philip's marriage to Cleopatra should be one of those who silenced Pausanias on the orders of his shadowy masters, those who wanted to get rid of Philip because of his marriage to Cleopatra ...

(Still following Nicator's theory, that is.)

Am I stirring the pot, or stewing it?

ATB

[marcus]

Philip = JFK;
Pausanias = Lee Harvey Oswald;
Royal Guard = Jack Ruby;

....I just cracked this baby wide open!

So which one is Jackie K?
Alexander must then be a mixture of LBJ and Bobby Kennedy ... initial successor mixed in with the member of the clan who later also got murdered (because obviously Alexander was himself murdered ... no doubt by the same shadowy manipulators who for some reason decided to mix it up later and throw away all their grand plans by plunging the world into chaos.)

OMG, I've just realised, it's ALL Ptolemy, laying plans in 336BC to get his hands on Egypt and Syria. No, wait a moment, it's the ancestors of Gaius Octavius, who are laying down plans for a scion of their house to rule the Roman Empire, three hundred years into the future.

All sorted!

ATB

[the_accursed]

Accursed (what's up with that name?!),
It seems fairly obvious that Alexander was more than a cheerleader. His methods were ground breaking in that he preferred to use breakneck speed utilizing cavalry as the offensive arm over the more traditional method of infantry utilized by Philip. That was what was needed to get the job done in a land mass as large as Asia. A few times, his speed got him into trouble but more often than not, it saved thousands of lives and allowed him to take the army to realms Philip could have only dream of. Then there were the brilliant adaptations to the tried and true battle plans used by Philip (and his Theban caretakers). And what Alexander did at Hydaspes was above and beyond anything attempted before. We saw Napolean utilizing his fake fronts and the Americans using his holding force w/flanking maneuver from this brilliant battle plan. His understanding of battle with its corresponding strategies, tactics, and the logistics required to implement it, were without peer. Alexander made the army move and kept them on top for many years. He was innovative and crafty and his dogmatic drive and endurance alone set him apart from Philip or Philip's capabilities. He was the warlord incarnate.

Philip had the advantage of being within Greece proper (or within earshot along Asia Minor). For sure, Philip was amazing in his day. Just as certain, his numerous peccadilloes were seen as a problem. He was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that caroused with 'too many' women and boys. And in the end, I believe that this either led directly or indirectly to his downfall. Maybe a little bit of both. Philips character was costing the kingdom and those behind the scenes perhaps saw the young prince and heir apparent being pushed into the shadows by his latest fiasco with Attalus' ward or niece Cleopatra and her son. If her child got too much older, it would make it too difficult to bring Alexander back into the limelight as the King. The timing here was crucial. There was a power shift going on in Macedon at the highest levels and Alexander was getting the boot. Philip could feel his son's ambition, capabilities, and moral character and probably found it a bit dangerous.

Regarding my nickname, I picked it because I like it. It's not intended as a comment on Alexander.

In my opinion, when people speak of Alexander's tactics and strategies, what they're talking about is almost certainly the tactics and strategies of Philip's generals. Alexander, in spite of his inexperience, simply got the credit for their talents and work because he was, formally, the man in charge. And had someone else been in charge, that person would have got the credit. Early in his career, Philip and his army lost two battles. It would seem both Philip, brilliant as he was, and his army needed to gradually gain experience to realise their full potentials. In Alexander's case, on the other hand, we're supposed to believe he sprang clad in armour from Philip's head. That he and his "genius" is a significant reason why the Macedonian army continued to perform on the same level after Philip's death as it had before it. Alexander apparently didn't need to gradually gain experience. He was just that great. If we can forget about Alexander's glamour and wonder boy status and look at the Macedonian campaign against Persia logically, Alexander is not needed to explain why the Macedonians won. They won because their army was the best in the world and because Persia, however large and rich that empire may have been, was (comparatively speaking) weak. Nowhere in that equation is a 20-year old wonder boy needed to explain the outcome. Rather, that 20-year old seems a wonder boy because of the greatness of his army and generals, and the comparative weakness of their opponents.

Regarding Alexander going against the advice of his generals, I agree that he sometimes did. And usually, it was a foolish thing to do. Such as when he refused to follow the advice to get married and father an heir before the campaign against Persia. But most of the examples of Alexander not accepting the advice of his generals were in my opinion made up. They were created to make the great Alexander seem bold, intelligent and unique. Such as when Parmenion advised Alexander to accept Darius' offer, or when Alexander's advisers at the beginning of his reign advised him to appease the Greeks and the peoples who had risen in revolt. Peculiar how generals who had been so brave and tough under Philip would suddenly become so weak and timid under Alexander.

[marcus]

or when Alexander's advisers at the beginning of his reign advised him to appease the Greeks and the peoples who had risen in revolt. Peculiar how generals who had been so brave and tough under Philip would suddenly become so weak and timid under Alexander.

When did they do this?

ATB

[the_accursed]

or when Alexander's advisers at the beginning of his reign advised him to appease the Greeks and the peoples who had risen in revolt. Peculiar how generals who had been so brave and tough under Philip would suddenly become so weak and timid under Alexander.

When did they do this?

ATB

Alexander's Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them. As for the barbarian tribes, they considered that he should try to win them back to their allegiance by using milder methods, and forestall the first signs of revolt by offering them concessions. Alexander, however, chose precisely the opposite course, and decided that the only way to make his kingdom safe was to act with audacity and a lofty spirit, for he was certain that if he were seen to yield even a fraction of his authority, all his enemies would attack him at once.

[Paralus]

One cannot argue that Philip was as 'up to the task' physically as his electrifying son. One eyed and hobbled...this was a recipe for disaster in a tight pinch. Repeatedly we hear of Alexander getting off horse and attacking on foot. In this type of warfare, the warlord's physique was paramount to success in close combat. Especially repeatedly where, in many situations, Alexander was immersed in the thick of things and would need to have 'both eyes' for total awareness.

In which case Philip should not ever have been in command at Chaeronaea for he was clearly not "physically up to the task". The entire proposition is rubbish and based on some idea that a twenty year old was needed to perform the job of the invasion of Asia ( as the_accursed has written). If the story is told correctly Alexander's two good eyes, lack of limp and lust for singular glory saw his life ended at the Granicus bar the efforts of an older (less physically adroit??) Cleitus.

The notion that only Alexander could lead on foot is baseless. What material we do have on Philip would indicate that he did so just as often as his son did and this is likely where Alexander learned such. And what on God's earth was Epaeminondas doing at Mantinea when he was likely well beyond fifty?? Just where did Monophthalmos get off leading armies (and cavalry charges) in Iran in his sixties?

And was it Philip that won Chaeronea or was it Alexander's dazzling raid on the Sacred Band?

"Dazzling raid"???

Diod.16.86.3-4 (Translation E.I. McQueen)
But later, Alexander,who was eager to give his father proof of his own valour and allowed no other to surpass him in determination, first opened up a gap in the enemy line with the support of the many brave men contending by his side.He broke through and by slaying many broke down the resistance of those ranged against him. After his comrades achieved the same result, the compact formation of the enemy line underwent a process of dissolution. When large numbers of corpses began to accumulate, Alexander and his men were the first to force their way through those arrayed against them and put them to flight.

No "raid" - dazzling or otherwise there I'd think. Seems you're supposition is firmly within the "company" or"accepted" storyline...

Alexander was likely being pushed to move over along with Olympias. This tension was real and without reservation or doubt. As witnessed by the incident between Attalus and Alexander in the banquet hall and the comments aimed at both Olympias and Alexander in reference to him being dubbed a 'bastard'. If this accusation caught on and Olympias position as a 'former' wife became sacrosanct, then Alexander would certainly have serious trouble trying to legitimately claim the throne down the road. .

The tension was real yes but what was the real cause?? We aren't informed as to Philip's intentions with respect to his son once he left for Asia. That Alexander was back in the "fold" speaks volumes. If he was not the heir who was?? Speculation needs to have some plausible reality supporting it.