Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[marcus]

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.

Thanks.

ATB

[marcus]

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?

Just what I've been trying to say, although you've been more forthright. I would add, of course, Seleucus and Lysimachus, who weren't exactly ones for leaving it to the young bucks.

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.

Yes, but don't forget that we don't need to be informed. If there are gaps in the sources, we can just speculate on what to insert.

ATB

[marcus]

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?

Just what I've been trying to say, although you've been more forthright. I would add, of course, Seleucus and Lysimachus, who weren't exactly ones for leaving it to the young bucks.

I remember reading about Jan Zizka, a Bohemian minor noble (1360-1424). He was blind in one eye from birth, but it didn't stop him from being Chief Huntsman for Wenceslas IV, and he was a commander during the war against the Teutonic Knights in the early 1400s - managing to hold a castle against a Teutonic attack despite having one eye (oh, and being older than Philip was when he was assassinated). Funnily enough, losing the sight in his other eye in 1421 didn't stop him from commanding armies, and winning battles, and he nearly captured Prague in the year he died at the age of 64. Obviously, he wasn't up to the task of leading successful campaigns, being old (in his 60s!) and totally blind at the end.

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.

Yes, but don't forget that we don't need to be informed. If there are gaps in the sources, we can just speculate on what to insert.

ATB

[Nikas]

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?

Just what I've been trying to say, although you've been more forthright. I would add, of course, Seleucus and Lysimachus, who weren't exactly ones for leaving it to the young bucks.

I remember reading about Jan Zizka, a Bohemian minor noble (1360-1424). He was blind in one eye from birth, but it didn't stop him from being Chief Huntsman for Wenceslas IV, and he was a commander during the war against the Teutonic Knights in the early 1400s - managing to hold a castle against a Teutonic attack despite having one eye (oh, and being older than Philip was when he was assassinated). Funnily enough, losing the sight in his other eye in 1421 didn't stop him from commanding armies, and winning battles, and he nearly captured Prague in the year he died at the age of 64. Obviously, he wasn't up to the task of leading successful campaigns, being old (in his 60s!) and totally blind at the end.

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.

Yes, but don't forget that we don't need to be informed. If there are gaps in the sources, we can just speculate on what to insert.

ATB

Or how about the diabolical and vindictive Enrico Dandalo, who besides apparently being 97 years old was also totally blind when he led the Venetians and the Fourth Crusade to sack Constantinople. That old cripple was apparently kept alive from a pathological desire for revenge...

[marcus]

Or how about the diabolical and vindictive Enrico Dandalo, who besides apparently being 97 years old was also totally blind when he led the Venetians and the Fourth Crusade to sack Constantinople. That old cripple was apparently kept alive from a pathological desire for revenge...

That's a good one! I'd heard of Dandalo, but didn't know anything about him, apart from his being connected to the Crusades. I shall store that one away, indeed!

ATB

[Nicator]

It's been a few weeks since I've had a chance to look up and breathe with the busiest interviewing schedule I've ever had. But, alas, a job is finally in the offing.

Accursed,
I'll begin by posting a bit from the wonderful opening page of Green...

"The story of Alexander the Great is inexorably bound up with that of his father, King Philip II, and with his country, Macedonia. Philip was a most remarkable and dominating figure in his own right; while Macedonia, as has recently been observed, 'was the first large territorial state with an effectively centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe'. Unless we understand this, and them, Alexander's career must remain for us no more than the progress of a comet, flaring in unparalleled majesty across the sky: a marvel, but incomprehensible. Genius Alexander had, and in full measure; yet even genius remains to a surprising extent the product of its environment. What Alexander was, Philip and Macedonia in great part made him, and it is with them that we must begin."

To be clear, this is the opening paragraph of Green's masterpiece on 'Alexander'. And like all truly excellent books, the opening line and paragraph set up a desire in the reader's mind to continue reading. The last sentence of this paragraph deserves another read...

"Genius Alexander had, and in full measure; yet even genius remains to a surprising extent the product of its environment. What Alexander was, Philip and Macedonia in great part made him, and it is with them that we must begin."

My question to you would be why are you attempting to bash Alexander for the sake of Philip? Is it your contention that Alexander had nothing to do with the victory at Guagamela? Was is NOT Alexander that devised the battle plan? The rolling box of phalanx designed to face out in all direction appears to have been an invention of Alexander's...not Philip. The 'Epaminondas Maneuver' was certainly bequeathed by Philip but the clever adaptation was born of Alexander. And I'll cede you this, if only because I have no point to prove one way or another, it was Parmenion's bravado on the left that allowed Alexander's master-stroke on the right to succeed. It was the exceptionally well trained phalanx battalions that was capable of implementing the rollout formation. It was the highly trained cavalry divisions on both wings that punched through against nearly overwhelming numbers in opposition. Much of that for sure was inherited from Philip. But we never hear of Philip taking on an army the size encountered at Issus, Guagamela, or Hydaspes. I would contend that it was Alexander's genius & drive that made the whole thing run and move forward. Particularly at the speed with which he did. And I disagree with your contention that the commander was not needed and that his generals were the ones that did all the heavy lifting. Though, lifting they did. It was a team effort from top to bottom and the top guy had to be the best of the bunch for the hierarchy to work or the jackals would have seen to his removal much earlier on. So, I agree with Green's comments concerning Alexander being the product of Philip AND Macedon. It was that competitive 'kill or be killed' environment that forged the entire military regime from top to bottom. This only gives more precedence to Alexander's imperative as the best of the best.

Paralus,
Where do I start?

Nicator wrote: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?

Wasn't Epaminondas killed in battle [ANSWER=YES]? So much for that argument...And again, why do I seem to be repeating this over and over) the unknown and unrecorded power brokers behind the scenes. Did I not make it clear that my entire post was based on supposition? I will extrapolate the implications whenever i see fit. You, however, are free to withhold testimony limited to the written word at your leisure.

My original supposition was not based on Alexander's physique, though one cannot truly argue with any credibility whatsoever, that Philip was as capable as Alexander in that regard. My point was based on decisions that were made to remove him based on his character and dynastic dealings. The fact that Philip lunged at Alexander in that banquet hall after Attalus thoroughly humiliated Alexander and his mother is very telling as to Philip's intentions towards Alexander and his mother...and Attalus.

..and finally Marcus,
You levity is always welcome. I would only go one inch further and say that from the investor/business/power broker perspective...major decisions were likely made early on and, perhaps, slight and limited adjustments later on. Any maneuvering would be very limited after the campaign began and left the geo-political confines of Europe proper. And even more-so, after Alexander became more firmly entrenched and confident in his role.

[the_accursed]

My question to you would be why are you attempting to bash Alexander for the sake of Philip? Is it your contention that Alexander had nothing to do with the victory at Guagamela? Was is NOT Alexander that devised the battle plan? The rolling box of phalanx designed to face out in all direction appears to have been an invention of Alexander's...not Philip. The 'Epaminondas Maneuver' was certainly bequeathed by Philip but the clever adaptation was born of Alexander. And I'll cede you this, if only because I have no point to prove one way or another, it was Parmenion's bravado on the left that allowed Alexander's master-stroke on the right to succeed. It was the exceptionally well trained phalanx battalions that was capable of implementing the rollout formation. It was the highly trained cavalry divisions on both wings that punched through against nearly overwhelming numbers in opposition. Much of that for sure was inherited from Philip. But we never hear of Philip taking on an army the size encountered at Issus, Guagamela, or Hydaspes. I would contend that it was Alexander's genius & drive that made the whole thing run and move forward. Particularly at the speed with which he did. And I disagree with your contention that the commander was not needed and that his generals were the ones that did all the heavy lifting. Though, lifting they did. It was a team effort from top to bottom and the top guy had to be the best of the bunch for the hierarchy to work or the jackals would have seen to his removal much earlier on. So, I agree with Green's comments concerning Alexander being the product of Philip AND Macedon. It was that competitive 'kill or be killed' environment that forged the entire military regime from top to bottom. This only gives more precedence to Alexander's imperative as the best of the best.

I'm not "...attempting to bash Alexander for the sake of Philip". I'm just stating my opinions. No, I don't give Alexander much credit for the Macedonian victories, Gaugamela included. I think Philip's experienced generals were the ones who devised the battle plans, based on, but not carbon copies of, the tactics they'd already used for over two decades. I give Alexander credit for his ability to cheer the Macedonians on as they conquered the world for him, but that's about it. I note that the Macedonian army performed just as well immediately after Philip's death as it had when he was alive and ask myself: what's the most reasonable explanation for this? I also note that most historians agree that the Macedonian army was the best in the world and ask myself: is it surprising, then, that they won?

As I've said before in this thread, if Occam's razor is applied to Alexander's career, a belief that Alexander must have been a "military genius" is not necessary to explain why Macedonia won. Rather, the myth of Alexander's ”genius” is in my opinion a consequence of the victories the greatest army in the world delivered to him. And that army was created and made great by Philip.

Philip once said that he took greater pride in his diplomatic accomplishments than in his military victories, as he owed his diplomatic accomplishments only to himself. In my opinion Alexander should be judged the same way. If we disregard the victories Philip's army won during Alexander's reign, how well did he do? What kind of king was he? In my opinion, from very early on and to the end of his career and life, Alexander often showed remarkably poor judgment. Even before he became king, his judgment got several of his closest friends exiled from Macedonia. Then he became king and refused to follow the advice to marry and father an heir before the invasion of Persia. His "orientalisation" policies caused a severe rift between himself and the Macedonians, resulting in assassination attempts, the deaths of several of his generals and a mutiny. He declared himself the son of a god and demanded that the Macedonians who'd conquered the world for him should grovel in the dirt before him. And throughout his career he often made decisions based not what was best from a strategic point of view, but on a sudden ”longing” for this and the other – such as leading a part of his army through the Gedrosian desert just because Cyrus and Semiramis supposedly had tried to.

This is the man you consider a ”genius” and think I'm ”bashing”. Myself I think that, were it not for the genius of Philip, people today would see Alexander for what he was: an utterly mediocre man who was never leadership material.

[Paralus]

Wasn't Epaminondas killed in battle [ANSWER=YES]? So much for that argument...

That is a little trite. The point is that he led and no Theban thought it better that a "more agile" and younger person should.

I note you forewent any engagement with Monophthalmus - a man clearly attested leading armies into battle until his death in 301. Just what was Parmenion doing leading the entire left wing of the Macedonian army? What was Antipater thinking leading an army against Sparta in 331?

My original supposition was not based on Alexander's physique, though one cannot truly argue with any credibility whatsoever, that Philip was as capable as Alexander in that regard.

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.

We could sally through the semantics of whether this is your original supposition or not, though you clearly describe Philip in the same terms in you first post. The point being, of course, a comparison with his "most agile and gifted" son being made by nefarious "power brokers"

And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.

Philip had just completed the subdugation of Greece. His settlement of Greece, via a symmachia arranged after his "remaking" of the geopolitical landscape, locked his position in. He was now the most powerful man outside of the Persian Empire. Nothing indicates that any iniquitous "unrecorded power brokers" saw Alexander as a far better ride in the Group One Empire Stakes.

The entire supposition sees Philip at the mercy of certain eminences grises lurking behind his position. If you would see Philip as Ptolemy IV Philopater, who exactly do you see as his Agathocles or Sosibios?

As for spending "too much time creating problems of succession "with a whole harem" (!), Alexander's immediate legacy was the dismemberment of his empire and the collapse of Macedonia as a world power due to the lack of any heir. All the excusatory arguments cannot cloud this straightforward fact. Almost four decades of war, politics, conquest and diplomacy scuttled for that "electrifying" lack of foresight.

And again, why do I seem to be repeating this over and over) the unknown and unrecorded power brokers behind the scenes. Did I not make it clear that my entire post was based on supposition? I will extrapolate the implications whenever i see fit. You, however, are free to withhold testimony limited to the written word at your leisure.

"Supposition" from the Oxford English Dictionary:

A belief held without proof or certain knowledge.

Silly me: attempting to argue against a position which is not susceptible to proof.

[marcus]

I note you forewent any engagement with Monophthalmus - a man clearly attested leading armies into battle until his death in 301. Just what was Parmenion doing leading the entire left wing of the Macedonian army? What was Antipater thinking leading an army against Sparta in 331?

And for Antipater to have the audacity to win his battle, as well. Hmph, I ask you ...

I suppose that the counter-argument would be that, had Antigonus possessed full oculary powers, he might have won ...

And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.

My biggest problem is with the question of *what* business/monetary interests? And why would Philip's continuation, or demise, make a difference to those "interests".

ATB

[Nicator]

Paralus,
Excellent reply...though, a bit trite in its own right.

That is a little trite. The point is that he led and no Theban thought it better that a "more agile" and younger person should.

I note you forewent any engagement with Monophthalmus - a man clearly attested leading armies into battle until his death in 301. Just what was Parmenion doing leading the entire left wing of the Macedonian army? What was Antipater thinking leading an army against Sparta in 331?

Nicator wrote:
My original supposition was not based on Alexander's physique, though one cannot truly argue with any credibility whatsoever, that Philip was as capable as Alexander in that regard.


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.

Pardon my lack of rebuttal in Monopthalmos' case. The original post was in regards to Philip not his other generals. However, Alexander is attested in numerous accounts as 'leading' his troops into battle at the tip of the spear and in the thick of things. Thus, a "lead by example" general. Most notably, the charge against the Persian left at Issus and the decisive wedge between the Persian left and center at Guagamela. Both against armies that were certainly far larger than ever attempted by Philip. It was Alexander's willingness to take on risk that perhaps elevated his status amongst his troops eyes. Perhaps you can clarify for me whether old one-eye(Antigonus) 'led' his troops into battle in this fashion or was he the general behind the scenes that sat back and watched his troops and marshalls lead the battle?

We could sally through the semantics of whether this is your original supposition or not, though you clearly describe Philip in the same terms in you first post. The point being, of course, a comparison with his "most agile and gifted" son being made by nefarious "power brokers"

Nicator wrote:
And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.


Philip had just completed the subdugation of Greece. His settlement of Greece, via a symmachia arranged after his "remaking" of the geopolitical landscape, locked his position in. He was now the most powerful man outside of the Persian Empire. Nothing indicates that any iniquitous "unrecorded power brokers" saw Alexander as a far better ride in the Group One Empire Stakes.

The entire supposition sees Philip at the mercy of certain eminences grises lurking behind his position. If you would see Philip as Ptolemy IV Philopater, who exactly do you see as his Agathocles or Sosibios?

As for spending "too much time creating problems of succession "with a whole harem" (!), Alexander's immediate legacy was the dismemberment of his empire and the collapse of Macedonia as a world power due to the lack of any heir. All the excusatory arguments cannot cloud this straightforward fact. Almost four decades of war, politics, conquest and diplomacy scuttled for that "electrifying" lack of foresight.

No argument on most of these points. Though, Alexander DID leave an heir...he just wasn't able to protect him because of his own demise.

You've done a bang em up job on attacking most of my posts and replies thus far, but haven't done much in the way of taking a stand on much of anything at all. So, is it then your contention then that Philip was greater than Alexander?

Nicator wrote:
And again, why do I seem to be repeating this over and over) the unknown and unrecorded power brokers behind the scenes. Did I not make it clear that my entire post was based on supposition? I will extrapolate the implications whenever i see fit. You, however, are free to withhold testimony limited to the written word at your leisure.


"Supposition" from the Oxford English Dictionary:

A belief held without proof or certain knowledge.


Silly me: attempting to argue against a position which is not susceptible to proof.

...er, uh...he's catching on

[amyntoros]

And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.

My biggest problem is with the question of *what* business/monetary interests? And why would Philip's continuation, or demise, make a difference to those "interests".

This is my biggest problem too. Even if I think of Nicator's suggestion as an idea for a story I can't for the life of me come up with characters who were financially sound and powerful enough to exert influence behind the scenes AND who benefited considerably by the death of Philip. Certainly not anyone in Athens or Thebes as Alexander was their worst nightmare! Persia had the wealth, of course, and it's often been argued that the king was behind the assassination, but that's not what Nicator is implying here. Philip had already conquered a huge swathe in the north so any rulers there are out of the picture, plus they'd prefer a weak king on the Macedonian throne anyway. So who is left? Certain Macedonians? But who? And why would those rich enough to be considered "power brokers" think that they'd benefit more by having Alexander on the throne rather than Philip? It's an interesting premise but I can't, as yet, make it work.

Best regards,

[spitamenes]

I don't think Macedonia was rich enough to have that level of "power brokers". And Darius might not have even considered Macedonia any more than a minor pain at that time. Even with Alexander he didn't come out personally until Issus. So who cared enough about getting Philip off the throne and Alexander on? Maybe Olympias had a crafty enough tongue to convince a few certain power players into thinking it was a good idea for some reason. Only to get her son on the throne as her ulterior motive. That's all just a big fat glob of speculation anyway though so who knows.

[Nicator]

I don't think Macedonia was rich enough to have that level of "power brokers". And Darius might not have even considered Macedonia any more than a minor pain at that time. Even with Alexander he didn't come out personally until Issus. So who cared enough about getting Philip off the throne and Alexander on? Maybe Olympias had a crafty enough tongue to convince a few certain power players into thinking it was a good idea for some reason. Only to get her son on the throne as her ulterior motive. That's all just a big fat glob of speculation anyway though so who knows.

What does Macedonia's wealth have to do with it? These power broker types are international types, perhaps, Persians, Athenians, Lydians, etc...
Don't forget that Macedonia was on the forefront of world affairs for some time. And with the centralized political structure and key strategic location north of Athens and between Greece proper and Persia, Macedon was well positioned to take full advantage of manpower, resources, and trade. And for Demosthenes to focus his rants on Philip with such a rabid intensity, Macedon must have been more than just a backwater 3rd world horse depot. And big money is almost always in the know where opportunity exists and can be exploited. And then, as now, these power brokers would not want to be known or recognized. That would invite thieves and other forms of financial attack. The speculation can go no further. But it is that speculation where big money types have pulled some strings and set up an assassination that is the point here. Beyond that, why bother.

Keep in mind, I worship the facts and the sources too. I also like speculating on possibilities where the facts and sources allow some leeway. And in some cases, pointing out where the sources are screaming to look at obvious implications but don't spell it out verbatim. It is rare that history includes the common man and his concerns unless it affects nobility. This is a well known problem with most of human recorded history. It's why we read all about Alexander but almost nothing about the non-noble Macedonians. But they were certainly there and having a life...some with significant contributions that we've not heard about and never will.

And I would suggest that certain men, (perhaps with business/monetary interests behind the scenes?), were aware that Alexander was ready now and Philip was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world.

My biggest problem is with the question of *what* business/monetary interests? And why would Philip's continuation, or demise, make a difference to those "interests".

This is my biggest problem too. Even if I think of Nicator's suggestion as an idea for a story I can't for the life of me come up with characters who were financially sound and powerful enough to exert influence behind the scenes AND who benefited considerably by the death of Philip. Certainly not anyone in Athens or Thebes as Alexander was their worst nightmare! Persia had the wealth, of course, and it's often been argued that the king was behind the assassination, but that's not what Nicator is implying here. Philip had already conquered a huge swathe in the north so any rulers there are out of the picture, plus they'd prefer a weak king on the Macedonian throne anyway. So who is left? Certain Macedonians? But who? And why would those rich enough to be considered "power brokers" think that they'd benefit more by having Alexander on the throne rather than Philip? It's an interesting premise but I can't, as yet, make it work.

Best regards,

Alexander was not Athens worst nightmare (until much later). He'd visited the hallowed halls of the Acropolis and probably not aroused any great fear or animosity. In fact, we could speculate that this visit touched off another riff between Philip and Alexander after the Athenians produced the bust of Alexander. I think that overall, most replies have been trying hard to force the politicians and other nobles into this mold of the private power broker financiers that I'm leaning towards in this whole supposition.

The other possibility is that these power brokers saw the youthful Alexander as non-threatening (to their interests). Perhaps, more pliable and easier to work with (or keep in check) than the extremely powerful and domineering Philip. One plausible reason for removing Philip was that he was becoming too powerful and beginning to interfere with the machinations of these big business types. Or more clearly, Philip's incursions were reducing profits BIGTIME. This is not hard to see at all. Nobody could predict that Alexander's ambitions were even more towering than Philips. So, some may have sought to remove Philip for short term financial gain, others for long term gain. Either way, Philip's removal was paramount.

[marcus]

Nobody could predict that Alexander's ambitions were even more towering than Philips. So, some may have sought to remove Philip for short term financial gain, others for long term gain. Either way, Philip's removal was paramount.

Well, they were a bit stupid if they didn't predict Alexander's ambitions:

while his ambition kept his spirit serious and lofty in advance of his years. [5] For it was neither every kind of fame nor fame from every source that he courted, as Philip did, who plumed himself like a sophist on the power of his oratory, and took care to have the victories of his chariots at Olympia engraved upon his coins; nay, when those about him inquired whether he would be willing to contend in the foot-race at the Olympic games, since he was swift of foot, “Yes,” said he, “if I could have kings as my contestants.” (Plutarch, Alexander 4.4)

[2] At all events, as often as tidings were brought that Philip had either taken a famous city or been victorious in some celebrated battle, Alexander was not very glad to hear them, but would say to his comrades: “Boys, my father will anticipate everything; and for me he will leave no great or brilliant achievement to be displayed to the world with your aid.” [3] For since he did not covet pleasure, nor even wealth, but excellence and fame, he considered that the more he should receive from his father the fewer would be the successes won by himself. Therefore, considering that increase in prosperity meant the squandering upon his father of opportunities for achievement, he preferred to receive from him a realm which afforded, not wealth nor luxury and enjoyment, but struggles and wars and ambitions. (Plutarch, Alexander 5.2-3)

[5] Philip and his company were speechless with anxiety at first; but when Alexander made the turn in proper fashion and came back towards them proud and exultant, all the rest broke into loud cries, but his father, as we are told, actually shed tears of joy, and when Alexander had dismounted, kissed him, saying: “My son, seek thee out a kingdom equal to thyself; Macedonia has not room for thee.” (Plutarch, Alexander, 6.5)

I cannot persuade myself not to laugh at Alexander the son of Philip, if it is true that when he heard there were an infinite number of worlds – Democritus says this in his writings – he was pained at the thought of not even being the master of the one we all know. Need one say how much Democritus would have laughed at him, laughter being his stock-in-trade? (Aelian, 4.29)

Alexander’s appetite for fame was insatiable. He said to his companion Anaxarchus who was retailing on the authority of his teacher Democritus the existence of innumerable worlds: “Alas for me, I have not yet made myself master of one!” A holding that suffices for the domicile of all the gods was not large enough for one glory-hungry man. (Valerius Maximus, 8.14.2)

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ...



ATB

[marcus]

Alexander was not Athens worst nightmare (until much later). He'd visited the hallowed halls of the Acropolis and probably not aroused any great fear or animosity. In fact, we could speculate that this visit touched off another riff between Philip and Alexander after the Athenians produced the bust of Alexander. I think that overall, most replies have been trying hard to force the politicians and other nobles into this mold of the private power broker financiers that I'm leaning towards in this whole supposition.

Oh, I don't know. The one and only time Alexander visited Athens was just after he had helped his father smash the Athenian/Theban coalition at Chaeronea, and Alexander went with Antipater to receive Athens' abject submission, and to dictate to them Philip's terms. The fact that they received extremely generous terms was down to Philip, not to Alexander.

I admit that, even at this point, Demosthenes was scornful of Alexander, calling him Margites, etc.; but Demosthenes was full of bile, and determined to whip up anti-Macedonian feeling in Athens. It doesn't detract from the fact that, when Alexander visited Athens, the Athenians must have been terrified of what he might, or could, do ...

Even if what you suggest were the case ... the "much later" you refer to would be no later than 335 BC, after the destruction of Thebes. Amazing that the power brokers, having realised their mistake (?) in 335 BC, then did absolutely nothing about removing Alexander and finding someone who was even more pliable than he was supposed to have been.

Or did they arrange to plant Barsine in his household to spy on him, ineffectively, for their unspecified and unclear ends?

ATB