The Pixodarus Affair

[amyntoros]

I've never given the Pixodarus affair much consideration, except to note it as an example of Plutarch's scapegoat syndrome in that he lays the blame on Olympias and Alexander's friends rather than merely presenting Alexander as being foolish. Now an email discussion with a friend has prompted me to question why Alexander would ever have believed his ascension to the throne was threatened by the arranged marriage of Arrhidaeus to Pixodarus' daughter. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I know that throughout history arranged marriages were common for political and dynastic purposes, but, as far as I can tell, in this period it was the daughters who were used as pawns and not the sons. Apart from this one exception, if Philip needed to secure an alliance he either married into the family himself or arranged for the marriage of a female member of his own family. It seems to me that by proffering Arrhidaeus as a potential son-in-law he was lessening Arrhidaeus' status (by treating him as the family women were treated and making decisions for him) rather than raising him up in any way. No Macedonian royal to my knowledge was ever guaranteed succession to the throne (of Macedonia) by means of an arranged marriage. There's no logic to this situation, no precedent that Alexander could have looked to and felt his own position to be threatened. Yes, it was unusual for Philip not to have offered to marry Pixodarus' daughter himself, but surely this indicated that the liaison was not of the utmost importance, being only a useful political move if it proved to be successful. Could Alexander really have been threatened by the proposed marriage? Would he not have been more offended if HE had been told he had to marry and the wife had been chosen by his father? Would he not have seen himself as a mere political pawn and felt his own position lessened in such a situation?

I'm open to all views on this subject. On the one hand I have my thoughts as laid out above. On the other hand, I can't dismiss the affair completely. There are too many historical "connections" for the whole incident to be regarded as a fabrication - Alexander's relationship with Ada of Caria, Philotas' role, Thessalus' role, the exile of Alexander's friends, etc. Yet there's something illogical about Alexander's behavior - not a word one would normally use to describe him.

And I'm disinclined to believe that Olympias would have seen the marriage as a threat either. She was smarter than that.

Best regards,

Amyntoros

[marcus]

However, consider that sons were, in many ways, just as much pawns as daughters were. Certainly in Medieval and Early Modern Europe the sons were as much subject to the decisions their fathers made for them ... the difference being that the fathers might consider a bit more carefully in the case of the sons, because of the issues of succession. There might be more of an element of choice, but when push came to shove, I'm not sure that there was.

So I don't entirely disagree that a marriage to a fairly small-fry satrap's daughter would not necessarily be the choice for a potential heir. However, with polygamy hardly frowned upon, did it matter so much who Arrhidaeus' first wife was ... and, therefore, does not the choice of Arrhidaeus as the groom indicate that he is preferred in some way? To a slightly paranoid Alexander it might well do.

ATB

[alejandro]

why Alexander would ever have believed his ascension to the throne was threatened by the arranged marriage of Arrhidaeus to PixodarusGÇÖ daughter. It doesnGÇÖt make a lot of sense.
It seems to me that by proffering Arrhidaeus as a potential son-in-law he was lessening ArrhidaeusGÇÖ status (by treating him as the family women were treated and making decisions for him) rather than raising him up in any way.
Could Alexander really have been threatened by the proposed marriage? Would he not have been more offended if HE had been told he had to marry and the wife had been chosen by his father? Would he not have seen himself as a mere political pawn and felt his own position lessened in such a situation?
Yet thereGÇÖs something illogical about AlexanderGÇÖs behavior GÇô not a word one would normally use to describe him.

Funny, but reading your message "between the lines", I wondered if the true story wouldn't be one where Alexander was indeed offered as the groom, and hence his reaction. When the plot imploded, the story was spin doctored to shift the blame.
Nice as an "as if" scenario, though I doubt that Demosthenes and co. wouldn't have ignored such a fabulous opportunity to blacken Alexander's name.
Best,
Alejandro

[amyntoros]

However, consider that sons were, in many ways, just as much pawns as daughters were. Certainly in Medieval and Early Modern Europe the sons were as much subject to the decisions their fathers made for them ...

Point taken, although 'm not sure if this practice was in effect in Macedonian times. Even though Macedonian women had slightly more freedom than Athenian women, there was a powerful and obvious cult of the male needing to kill a man in battle before being able to wear a sword-belt, and having to kill a boar with a net before a man could recline on the symposium couch, etc. Having gone through all the rites of passage, wouldn't you expect a fully adult male to be allowed to pick his own wife or wives? This was no marriage arranged in infancy as was done in later times.

This brings me to the subject of Arrhidaeus. What about Plutarch's claim that Arrhidaeus was weak-minded? Elizabeth Carney has presented a case for slight retardation (The trouble with Philip Arrhidaeus, AHB 15.1-2), although I think the same argument could be made (on her evidence) for a type of Asperger's Syndrome. Either way, we are talking about a man who apparently presented as somewhat low functioning. One wonders then if Arrhidaeus had proven himself as a man and/or if he had received an education fit for a successor to the throne. If he truly was low-functioning, then how could Alexander have believed Philip was considering Arrhidaeus for the succession and that this marriage was evidence of Philip's intent? OTH, if Plutarch's story about Arrhidaeus is untrue, how do we explain his absence from the historical records until Babylon? And why wouldn't the army have immediately claimed Arrhidaeus as regent if he was fully capable of ruling alone? Whichever way you look at it, the historical equation doesn't add up. There's either something missing or some misinformation included in the stories that have come down to us.

Best regards,

Amyntoros

PS. Interesting GÇ£what ifGÇ¥, Alejandro, but it would be difficult to correlate with the historical evidence that remains. For instance, would Alexander have had the nerve to send Thessalus to Caria to object to the marriage? However . . . Philip's reaction would have remained the same.

[marcus]

Point taken, although IGÇÖm not sure if this practice was in effect in Macedonian times

Well, in some ways (after I'd re-read my post), whether or not the sons had any say in whom they married is not really relevant - because of the instance of polygamy. Although whatever it was that made the son a "man" is likewise not really relevant, because they would still have been under the control of their fathers to a large extent - and the more so if their father is the king.

Anyway, the point being that, in a polygamous society, the fact that Pixodarus was rather small fry wouldn't really make that much difference.

I'm terribly interested in the Arrhidaeus situation. I recently spent quite a lot of time on the WCD correcting all the non-PC descriptions of Arrhidaeus that had been copied from some 19th century classical dictionary. It makes you realise how difficult it is to describe his sort of condition generally - and even more difficult when you don't actually know what the condition was!

I'd love to hear more ideas/research/etc on what might have been wrong with him.

ATB

Marcus

PS: Note how I managed to include the URL for the WCD, according to the instructions Thomas gave us? Cool, huh?

[karen]

Hi all:

I'm going to out myself as the "friend" Amyntoros mentioned, and reiterate the comments I made to her via email, but with the thoughts a bit more organized.

The implausibility that Amyntoros raises, of a marriage between Arrhidaios and Pixodaros' daughter being a threat to Alexander's accession, is just one of several implausibilities to the whole tale in my mind. Pardon me for repeating a point or two, as I wrote most of this before I saw the most recent messages in this thread.

Let's haul the Plutarchian version (per Dryden) down from our virtual shelf:

But this reconciliation lasted not long; for when Pixodorus, viceroy of Caria, sent Aristocritus to treat for a match between his eldest daughter and Philip's son, Arrhidaeus, hoping by this alliance to secure his assistance upon occasion, Alexander's mother, and some who pretended to be his friends, presently filled his head with tales and calumnies, as if Philip, by a splendid marriage and important alliance, were preparing the way for settling the kingdom upon Arrhidaeus.

Arrhidaios had some sort of mental deficiency that required him to be "babysat" by others even in adulthood. Amyntoros argues this well in a message above, citing Carney (whose article she sent me). As well, if Alexander really did see Arrhidaios as a credible rival, he'd have offed him later, as he did Amyntas, Attalos, Alexander Lynkestis, etc. So, if the man was incapable of independent decisions on anything complex or subtle -- why would Alexander ever be worried that Philip would name him heir?

Even if Arrhidaios was competent, why would Alexander interpret this marriage as evidence that Arrhidaios would be named heir anyway? It would make more sense for Philip to save his true heir for higher-status matches, decided based on the degree of success of his Persian campaign.

In alarm at this, he despatched Thessalus, the tragic actor, into Caria, to dispose Pixodorus to slight Arrhidaeus, both illegitimate and a fool, and rather to accept of himself for his son-in-law. This proposition was much more agreeable to Pixodorus than the former.

Perhaps so, but Pixodaros never would have agreed to it without Philip's approval. He was hoping to "secure his assistance upon occasion" -- not the time to offend someone!

But Philip, as soon as he was made acquainted with this transaction...

This is where the story falls most spectacularly to the ground. There's no way that Alexander could have pulled it off without Philip finding out at some point -- he could hardly hold a royal wedding in secret -- and there's no way he would have not been in severe trouble, because it constituted a direct thwarting of Philip's will -- active insubordination. Alexander would have foreseen that any such plan was doomed to failure. This is a guy whose plans were generally spectacularly successful. I don't think his mother or any of his friends were that stupid, either.

...went to his son's apartment, taking with him Philotas, the son of Parmenio, one of Alexander's intimate friends and companions, and there reproved him severely, and reproached him bitterly, that he should be so degenerate, and unworthy of the power he was to leave him, as to desire the alliance of a mean Carian, who was at best but the slave of a barbarous prince.

Alexander's estimation of the status of Pixodaros would never have so differed from Philip's. The fact that Pixodaros was subject to the Persian empire is another important point, I think -- because I doubt very much the Great King would have approved of one of his satraps marrying the son of a powerful neighbouring king who had plans to invade. Thus the marriage negotiation would have to have been sub rosa -- a secret betrothal, with the wedding only possible after Caria was "liberated" of Persia by Philip. This fits with the use of a trusted envoy.

Nor did this satisfy his resentment, for he wrote to the Corinthians to send Thessalus to him in chains, and banished Harpalus, Nearchus, Erigyius, and Ptolemy, his son's friends and favourites, whom Alexander afterwards recalled and raised to great honour and preferment.

No rebut here, just finishing the quote -- though maybe there's a little more evidence: considering the shrewdness showed later by Ptolemy, who was also older than Alexander, it's hard to imagine him having been party to this hare-brained scheme.

Add to this the point Amyntoros made above re marriages of princes. In the Greek city states a large age difference between bride and groom was traditional, men tending not to marry until they were older than 25 (at which time their fathers would often be dead anyway), whereas women married in their mid-teens. I simply think that Philip was treating Arrhidaios like a girl because his mental deficiency put him in a similar position: ineligible to make decisions, but still of Argead blood and therefore able to represent the Argead family in alliances.

I personally think that Philip and Alexander actually talked about these things, and Philip would have told Alexander his reasons for marrying off Arrhidaios. I think he was probably allowing Alexander his choice, with a strong suggestion to save himself for bigger fish -- such as one of Dareios' daughters, if the Persian campaign was that successful.

...continued...

[marcus]

In the Greek city states a large age difference between bride and groom was traditional, men tending not to marry until they were older than 25 (at which time their fathers would often be dead anyway), whereas women married in their mid-teens. I simply think that Philip was treating Arrhidaios like a girl because his mental deficiency put him in a similar position: ineligible to make decisions, but still of Argead blood and therefore able to represent the Argead family in alliances.

I have to say that I don't buy that one, Karen. First, what went in the Greek states did not automatically follow for Macedonia. Second, I'm not aware that we have enough evidence of people's ages of marriage, in Macedonia at least, to make such a statement. Third, when it's a royal family, with issues of state in the balance, can we say with certainty that they followed the "norm" - whatever that was?

Because it's a matter of state, I just don't buy that Alexander would have been any more free to make the decision about whom to marry, had Philip wanted to use him to seal an alliance. And, whatever Arrhidaeus' mental state, I can't see that he was being treated "like a girl" by having an alliance sought for him. I would be willing to accept that Philip, knowing that his son was not going to be cut out to rule, thought at least to make use of him in an alliance ... but I don't agree that this amounts to treating him as anything other than a son.

That isn't to say that I disagree with much else of what you, and Amyntoros, have already said - the whole affair seems very strange, and of course we only have Plutarch's version of the story.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I'm terribly interested in the Arrhidaeus situation. . . . I'd love to hear more ideas/research/etc on what might have been wrong with him.

As far as I know, Carney's is the only scholarly article on Arrhidaeus, but, like you, I'd love to know if (and where) the topic has been addressed by others.

PS: Note how I managed to include the URL for the WCD, according to the instructions Thomas gave us? Cool, huh?

Is the blue color of the link automatic, or did you have to enter a code for that too? Am only asking because it wasn't immediately evident that a link was present - the color was so subtle that I didn't realize it was there till you pointed it out at the end!

ATB

Amyntoros

[karen]

But I think something did happen that led to the tale. It isn't really proper for historians to speculate, but as a novelist I can have some fun! So here's my hypothesis.

Philip & Pixodaros were indeed negotiating a secret betrothal between Arrhidaios & Pixodaros' daughter, and this was preliminary to other agreements concerning the campaign, which from the Persian point of view would have been treason on Pixodaros' part. But somehow word got back to the Great King -- perhaps a letter was intercepted or a conversation overheard -- and, even if he could convince the Persian authorities that he'd been stringing Philip along, he had to repudiate the betrothal fast, and in a way that made him look very loyal, or face big trouble. So either by his own devising, or with Persian help, he came up with a tale that would not only scotch the deal but make both the mighty Philip and his brilliant up-and-coming son Alexander look like fools, and perhaps, with some luck, even widen the rift between them and thus sow discord in and weaken Makedonia. So he spread it around that both Philip and Alexander had approached him, Philip to offer Arrhidaios, Alexander to offer himself.

Why would he implicate Thettalos (or Thessalus, as Plutarch spells it)? Maybe he figured it added a measure of plausibility, since the actor was a friend of Alexander's and had visited. Perhaps it was also a critical commentary on his acting

When this got back to Makedonia, Philip probably realized that Pixodaros had been caught out and had had to come up with a story, so he likely didn't believe the part about Alexander. But he realized, it didn't matter; either way, the story going public was an opportunity to get under his thumb a son who was becoming powerful enough to be worrisome. Not only would he sap that power by disgracing Alexander and exiling his friends, but he could hold Thettalos as hostage to Alexander's good behavior, by threatening to have him arrested and questioned under torture. For this reason Alexander was not in a position to set the record straight immediately, and so the story stood as it was (though probably no one talked about it in front of him once he was king).

So -- for what it's worth, that, or something along those lines, is what I think happened.

One thing I like about this new forum is that you can edit your messages after they have been posted. A thousand pardons to anyone who might be addressing a point that I've deleted from the above message, because I realized it didn't make sense...

Warmly,
Karen

[amyntoros]

I'm not aware that we have enough evidence of people's ages of marriage, in Macedonia at least, to make such a statement. Third, when it's a royal family, with issues of state in the balance, can we say with certainty that they followed the "norm" - whatever that was?

It'd be useful - and more than a little interesting - to pour through whatever historical records we have of both the early Macedonians and the Successors and see if there's a pattern for age (of royal sons) at the time of marriage. However, it would be very difficult to figure this out as dates of birth are rarely recorded. And with all the political machinations in early Hellenistic times there probably wasn't a "norm" any more - if there ever was one in the first place - so I'm more or less agreeing with you here. However, I can't shake the feeling that various scholars have claimed that Macedonian men also married at a much later age than the females - perhaps Karen also read this somewhere? Now, could Jeanne have been one of these scholars? This is going to be difficult because I don't really know where to begin, but I'll see what I can find regarding this issue. It'll probably take a while, but with the new forum we know we can pick up this thread at a later date. Have to say, the format is growing on me by leaps and bounds!

Best regards,

Amyntoros

[karen]

Hi Marcus et al:

Well, we do have some evidence for the ages of royal spouses of Makedonia at the time of their espousing. I'm doing this quickly, not proper scholarly work, but here's Carney, from Women & Monarchy in Macedonia:

Greenwalt concluded that Argead males generally married in their early twenties and that women married somewhat earlier, in their late teens. Well-known exceptions to these generalizations (Alexander, who first married close to the age of thirty, and Adea Eurydice, who married in her mid-teens) occurred for political reasons. In comparison to the Athenian pattern, the royal Macedonian pattern was older brides and younger grooms. Greenwalt argues that the Athenian age pattern for marriage derived primarily from economic concerns, whereas Argead age patterns for marriage reflect both the need for the stability offered by the early production of a male heir and the varying foreign policy requirements of monarchs... Although it is possible that some male Argeads married before they took the throne, more typically they married soon after.

p. 19

(Actually, we could add Philip to the list of well-known exceptions, skewing more towards the older-groom/younger-bride pattern -- since he first married at 24 and last married at 45.)

So, you're right about the difference between southern Greek and Makedonian customs, but it seems there was still an age difference between brides and grooms -- and obviously the last quoted line is very significant for our purposes. If most of the Argead kings married after they took the throne, then they, not their fathers, were choosing their wives, because their fathers were dead. To me this suggests that the fathers tended to leave it up to the sons -- if not in respect of their manhood, then to let them make alliances that suited their political situations as they happened, not as projected before the fact by Dad.

Thus marrying off Arrhidaios was unusual, and the fact that he was promised to the daughter of a man with whom Philip wanted to ally, to me means Philip was employing him precisely as if he'd been a girl.

...with the new forum we know we can pick up this thread at a later date.

YES! I am more used to this sort of forum, and never liked the way topics would scroll off into oblivion, never to be disinterred, on the pothos forum as it was...

Warmly,
Karen

[marcus]

Thanks, Karen.

Well, yes and no. Philip, of course, was off in Thebes as a hostage, and returned to Macedonia in his very late teens (if I recall correctly). In view of the chaotic situation at the time, I would say it was hugely understandable that he didn't marry before he became king (well, regent) - his first wife, of course, being a political alliance forged to bring peace and stability to the kingdom. So Philip was, indeed, in his early twenties when he first married ... but, then, he wasn't really in a position to marry before that, anyway.

Of course, one of the problems about arguing that royal sons would have married as their fathers dictated is that, just as your post suggests, the fathers tended to be dead ... but I also don't think we know enough about earlier Argead marriages to know if this was always the case, or just a particular problem of the two or three generations prior to Philip and Alexander.

Also, at the risk of saying "nyah nyah", the Greenwalt reference you quote does actually say that Argead males married in their early twenties (therefore not at minimum 25); and also that in comparison to the Athenian pattern, the royal Macedonian pattern was older brides and younger grooms. I don't point this out to make a point at your expense, Karen, merely to support (to some extent) the point I'm trying to make. (Re-reading your post I realise that you have acknowledged this, so allow me just a bit of "nyah nyah", would you? )

I still don't buy the business of Arrhidaeus being used "as a daughter", but I am happy to agree that I can't support my argument - I still think that sons would have had to bow to Dad's requirements, but as you rightly point out, Dad was usually dead, so we don't actually know whether this was the case.

It's a very interesting topic, which deserves close attention. However, I can see the need to investigate this business of splitting threads at some point, because it could get very confusing!

[marcus]

So -- for what it's worth, that, or something along those lines, is what I think happened.

Yes, I like it. It is suitably Byzantine in its layers of subterfuge, grasping what one can from the fire, etc. etc.

Perhaps Ptolemy, Nearchus, Harpalus, Erigyius and Laomedon, being Alexander's friends and 'mentors', even agreed to be the "sacrificial lambs" in order to round off the story. We know nothing about their exile, and there's no reason why it couldn't have been a perfectly comfortable one. Alexander appears to have recalled them immediately following, or shortly after Philip's murder, but who's to say that Philip hadn't already sent a message to them - "as it's my daughter's wedding, and things have quietened down, you boys might as well come back to Pella. I'll stand you a few drinks to make up for it" ... although unfortunately, as we know, they arrived at the bar to find Philip hadn't put his card behind it ...


ATB

[Efstathios]

It would make more sense for Philip to save his true heir for higher-status matches, decided based on the degree of success of his Persian campaign

.

Yes, very true.

You are making a mistake here.First of all Kings didnt only mary their daughters with a potential ally ,but their sons too.And they would also get married themselves with a daughter of a King to establish alliance.

There wasnt a pattern in the ages that the athenians,macedonians or greeks generally would mary.It varied.Normally it would be early 20's for men and mid teens for women.But Kings would many times mary at an older age just to establish an alliance.

As for Arrhidaios, he wasnt treated like a daughter in no way.He was a prince.But Phillip surely knew that his heir was Alexander.And surely Alexander and Philip talked about these things.Maybe Alexander had the way of making Philip mad with him ,but i dont believe that Philip ever doubted that Alexander was his heir.After all Philip entrusted Alexander the command of crucial parts of his armies,and Alexander won in every fight.He defeated the Sacred Band ,and Philip surely must have recognised the greatness of his son.

And that's why i dont believe that Alexander had anything to do with Philip's assasination,since he probably didnt have anything to worry about.The quarrels that these two had cannot be considered as a matter of succession.They were just arguments between a hot temepered and impulsive son and a hot tempered and many times drunk Philip.

It's impossible that Philip wouldnt have seen the greatness of Alexander,and his strategical mind.That's why there is no way that he would choose someone else for succession.That's why the incident with the wedding of Arrhidaios possibly wasnt about succession.Alexander was very perceptive and he may have thought that this wedding should not occur for some reason.Maybe because of the fact that Pixodarus was under the influence of Darius.

[karen]

Re-reading your post I realise that you have acknowledged this, so allow me just a bit of "nyah nyah", would you?

Okay. But only a bit.

Glad you like my idea. Reminds me, I have a friend who wrote several novels set in a fantasy version of Byzantium. His plots were... well, you know.

I can see ol' Philip inviting the exiled youths back to Pella for the wedding to try to smooth things over. The wedding was about reconciliation, between him and the Molossian royals, so no surprise if he threw a bone to Alexander too.

Efstathios, I agree totally that Alexander was the clear and obvious heir due to his precocious competence, and Philip would never have seriously considered someone else -- but for that very reason, he might well have felt threatened by him. What's more scary to a king, in a culture where assassinations so often go along with succession, than a great son? I can't imagine Alexander wasn't full of ideas of how things could be done better, whose value Philip had to grudgingly recognize without giving up authority -- as well as energy far greater than his father's, a fervent desire to do things fast (which the whole rest of his life demonstrates) and hence impatience, plus an unwavering confidence in himself. What if the son felt the father was losing his touch due to age, wear and tear and so on, so that the nation would be better off with new blood? What if others came to think so?

I think this would have been the real issue between them, but the succession was the big stick that Philip could hold over Alexander: "Step out of line and I'll disinherit you." Of course if Alexander built up a large enough base of support, Philip might not have been able to disinherit him, so hence Philip's steps to weaken Alexander's base, such as exiling his closest friends, and (in my hypothesis) embarrassing him. It was all power games, Philip was an old hand, and Alexander, I'm sure, learned very quickly and very young...

Karen