Logic Or Denial?

[Paralus]

"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 commandsGǪ"Very true. Indeed it is often presented for what it certainly was: a deal to have Parmenio and the "lowland Barons" onside. It is also a deal GÇô resented but agreed to out of sheer necessity GÇô which Alexander was not ever to forget, or to forgive, being foisted upon him. It took some six or so years, but Parmenio must surely have recognised the handiwork when confronted with the finality of its ultimate reward.What is interesting in a re-reading of the material is the fact that Olympias was in exile in Epirus during the period this scheme was arranged GÇô and arranged it certainly was. That (given ancient communications) would make it passingly difficult for her to be much involved in any detailed planning. We do not know the exact date of her return but must assume that Philip would have tolerated her at court for only that amount of time so as to be at the wedding celebrations.

The one that has, over the years, been advanced is Antipater. The man who was sent to Athens (along with Alexander) after Chaeronea. The noble with plenty to lose out of this dynastic positioning (the positions of both Parmenio and Attalus both being readily advanced by Philip's recent dynastic marriage and newborn son). To quote E Badian ("Alexander The Great in Fact and Fiction" O.U. Press 2000, p 54):"That Antipater had master-minded Alexander's accession, hence must have known about the plot to kill Philip, is not attested by any good source. But it is clear from his prompt action, and even more so from that of his son in law GÇô as we noted the only one of three sons of Aeropus who was fully prepared for the event. No other source for his foreknowledge is conceivable"That son in law of course being Alexander of Lyncestas. That same Alexander of Lyncestas who, immediately upon the assassination, put on his curiass and professed Alexander the rightful successor to his father Philip (whilst his accused brothers were dispatched). That same Alexander of Lyncestas who, after Granicus and far from Antipater's support in Macedon, is suddenly faced with a treason charge and summarily executed.Nothing like the intrigues of the Macedonian court!Paralus.

[Paralus]

"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 commandsGǪ"Very true. Indeed it is often presented for what it certainly was: a deal to have Parmenio and the "lowland Barons" onside. It is also a deal GÇô resented but agreed to out of sheer necessity GÇô which Alexander was not ever to forget, or to forgive, being foisted upon him. It took some six or so years, but Parmenio must surely have recognised the handiwork when confronted with the finality of its ultimate reward.What is interesting in a re-reading of the material is the fact that Olympias was in exile in Epirus during the period this scheme was arranged GÇô and arranged it certainly was. That (given ancient communications) would make it passingly difficult for her to be much involved in any detailed planning. We do not know the exact date of her return but must assume that Philip would have tolerated her at court for only that amount of time so as to be at the wedding celebrations.

The one that has, over the years, been advanced is Antipater. The man who was sent to Athens (along with Alexander) after Chaeronea. The noble with plenty to lose out of this dynastic positioning (the positions of both Parmenio and Attalus both being readily advanced by Philip's recent dynastic marriage and newborn son). To quote E Badian ("Alexander The Great in Fact and Fiction" O.U. Press 2000, p 54):"That Antipater had master-minded Alexander's accession, hence must have known about the plot to kill Philip, is not attested by any good source. But it is clear from his prompt action, and even more so from that of his son in law GÇô as we noted the only one of three sons of Aeropus who was fully prepared for the event. No other source for his foreknowledge is conceivable"That son in law of course being Alexander of Lyncestas. That same Alexander of Lyncestas who, immediately upon the assassination, put on his curiass and professed Alexander the rightful successor to his father Philip (whilst his accused brothers were dispatched). That same Alexander of Lyncestas who, after Granicus and far from Antipater's support in Macedon, is suddenly faced with a treason charge and summarily executed.Nothing like the intrigues of the Macedonian court!Paralus.

[marcus]

I have time for nothing more than: absolutely. I couldn't agree more with that post of yours!:-)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

I have time for nothing more than: absolutely. I couldn't agree more with that post of yours!:-)ATBMarcus

[kennyxx]

Its often Quoted that in some instances. But its also an attestment to Alexanders astuteness. He made his own luck.I also dont go with the Olympius totally responsible for the plot. The arguement a mother scorned. Surely before she married Philip she mast have known the state of play. Philip was bewd hopping and taking wives before and after Olympius so why so bitterly scorned.Indeed her interest was solely her son. She was not much better off once Alexander was king. He left Antipater in charge whilst she was just a queen.Just as a second thought. The wedding night when Philip and Alexander got to arguing. I wonder if Alexanders rage at that time was enough to kill Philip there and then as he did Clietus.In such cercumstances. Self defence could Alexander still be accepted as kind and would it be more noble than suspicion of assasination?Theres too much excisism. That Alexander wouldnt do this or do that because he was too noble. But as far as his glory and ambition were I feel theres nothing he wouldnt do. Most conqueresr before and since generally do and did.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Its often Quoted that in some instances. But its also an attestment to Alexanders astuteness. He made his own luck.I also dont go with the Olympius totally responsible for the plot. The arguement a mother scorned. Surely before she married Philip she mast have known the state of play. Philip was bewd hopping and taking wives before and after Olympius so why so bitterly scorned.Indeed her interest was solely her son. She was not much better off once Alexander was king. He left Antipater in charge whilst she was just a queen.Just as a second thought. The wedding night when Philip and Alexander got to arguing. I wonder if Alexanders rage at that time was enough to kill Philip there and then as he did Clietus.In such cercumstances. Self defence could Alexander still be accepted as kind and would it be more noble than suspicion of assasination?Theres too much excisism. That Alexander wouldnt do this or do that because he was too noble. But as far as his glory and ambition were I feel theres nothing he wouldnt do. Most conqueresr before and since generally do and did.Kenny

[kennyxx]

MarcusSunday Night at 8pm.the discovery Channel a new programe entitled who killed Alexander The Great.I dont think its the pragrame with the Scotland yard Detective.Kenny

[kennyxx]

MarcusSunday Night at 8pm.the discovery Channel a new programe entitled who killed Alexander The Great.I dont think its the pragrame with the Scotland yard Detective.Kenny

[kate]

I think Alexander's involvement is one of those questions which can be argued either way. Yes, he could be ruthless and capable of removing anyone standing in his way, but what about his genuine religious beliefs? Parricide (sp?) was a really serious crime and maybe a step too far for him to contemplate, at least when he was only twenty. Maybe it would have come to it in the end, but at the time of Philip's death I don't think Alexander was that desperate. Perhaps his state was of mind was more like Henry II with regard to Thomas a Becket - in a fit of rage did Alexander say something on the lines of "who will rid me of my turbulent father" and then someone, Antipater maybe, took him at his word? I could see that happening, but not Alexander cold-bloodedly and deliberately organising Philip's death. Cheers,
Kate

[kate]

I think Alexander's involvement is one of those questions which can be argued either way. Yes, he could be ruthless and capable of removing anyone standing in his way, but what about his genuine religious beliefs? Parricide (sp?) was a really serious crime and maybe a step too far for him to contemplate, at least when he was only twenty. Maybe it would have come to it in the end, but at the time of Philip's death I don't think Alexander was that desperate. Perhaps his state was of mind was more like Henry II with regard to Thomas a Becket - in a fit of rage did Alexander say something on the lines of "who will rid me of my turbulent father" and then someone, Antipater maybe, took him at his word? I could see that happening, but not Alexander cold-bloodedly and deliberately organising Philip's death. Cheers,
Kate

[jan]

I read somewhere that Demosthenes had tipped them off to the possibility that he was behind the assassination, having knowledge of it even before the news had yet reached Athens. As it was, even Demosthenes thought that Alexander too much of a boy to be a credible threat and leader of the Macedonians. Alexander had been terribly underestimated due to his age and his deferring to his father all the glory and achievements of various battles. It is very doubtful that Alexander would have deliberately killed his father, or even that Olympias would have. Her overt and obvious decoration of Pausanius deems her innocent to my mind.

[jan]

I read somewhere that Demosthenes had tipped them off to the possibility that he was behind the assassination, having knowledge of it even before the news had yet reached Athens. As it was, even Demosthenes thought that Alexander too much of a boy to be a credible threat and leader of the Macedonians. Alexander had been terribly underestimated due to his age and his deferring to his father all the glory and achievements of various battles. It is very doubtful that Alexander would have deliberately killed his father, or even that Olympias would have. Her overt and obvious decoration of Pausanius deems her innocent to my mind.

[marcus]

Overt and obvious honouring of Pausanias - you say that makes Olympias innocent in your mind. Do you mean guilty? (Just checking which you actually mean.)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Overt and obvious honouring of Pausanias - you say that makes Olympias innocent in your mind. Do you mean guilty? (Just checking which you actually mean.)ATBMarcus

[kate]

Hi Marcus,Maybe Jan thinks that Olympias wouldn't have made such a fuss if she had been guilty? A sort of she felt able to honour Pausanias because she had nothing to hide and could give vent to her feelings without needing to dissemble? I can see the logic in that, someone had done what she would have liked to and she didn't care who knew it.Cheers,
Kate