Latest on Alexander's death

[amyntoros]

Nothing to do with Callisthenes? Alexander's Persianizing tendencies?

In the first instance the sources are clear that it was the flogging. I think we understand why. Hermolaus needed to kill his boar to achieve the ability to recline at supper, but was short of opportunities. Instead of talking the matter through with Alexander, he simply slew the first boar that came his way, despite royal etiquette, which is classic behaviour by teenagers. Alexander had no choice but to treat it as insubordination. You might say he should have been more sensitive to the issue beforehand, but that would be to apply 20:20 hindsight. Obviously, the traditionalist complaints against Alexander’s Policy of Fusion then arose in the trial and played a supporting role. Are the traditionalists to be admired? Their basic premise was that Persians were barbarians and should be treated as second-class citizens in their own country. Their central complaint against Alexander was that he treated the Persians too well and even admired aspects of their culture. As for Callisthenes, he does not seem to have actually been in the plot, but he does seem slyly to have encouraged Hermolaus in his rebellious tendencies – probably because of his disillusion over the proskynesis issue.

I do happen to share your opinion that Alexander was still loved by the majority of the army at the time of his death, but I believe that at the time of the Pages' conspiracy it was the conflict regarding his "Persianizing" which brought about the assassination attempt . Although I can understand Hermolaus' anger at Alexander over the flogging and it may, indeed, have been his justification for the act, I find it difficult to believe that all the other pages were pulled into an assassination plot out of mere indignation and friendship. Curtius does say that Hermolaus and Sostratus "were discreet in selecting the people they would invite to join the conspiracy" (8.6.9) and although he tells us later that they did not waver in their intent due to "their common resentment towards Alexander or their loyalty to each other", he does not elaborate on what brought about that common resentment. It had to have been more than a flogging for surely they knew they could not get away with such a major crime based solely on retaliation. Teenagers they may have been, but even teenagers have the sense to know that actions bring about consequences. For them to think that they would survive an assassination attempt on Alexander surely indicates a belief that it would be welcomed by those not included in the conspiracy. Perhaps they did listen to gossip in the camps; I've no doubt that at this stage of the long campaign there were some disgruntled men, unhappy at the "honored" treatment of the vanquished and still unaccepting of the change in leadership style. However, the older, more mature members of the army had already learned what would happen to malcontents after the trial of Philotas, so if they spoke of their discontent within their own tents I doubt they imagined how it might be interpreted by their sons in the service of Alexander. The fact that some soldiers were unhappy on some level does not mean that they wished to kill and replace Alexander! Any such misconception on the part of the Pages could be put down to the folly of youth. So, for my part, I hold it more likely that the traditionalist views in the camp brought about the shared conspiracy and that the flogging was simply the catalyst.

It is a false syllogism to argue that assassins dislike their victims and Alexander was a victim of assassination attempts, therefore Alexander was generally disliked. In fact, it is often the most popular leaders who are targeted by assassins. It is their very popularity that makes it impossible for the assassins to remove them from their positions by more legitimate means and drives them to resort to murder. Consider whether you think the less of presidents Lincoln or Kennedy for the sake of their assassins?

Although I'm not taking up the cause for Alexander's death by assassination I must say that it's rarely as simple as whether or not the victims were generally liked or disliked, although either reason can be used to support an argument – a quick examination of Roman history will demonstrate both sides of the coin. Otoh, there are many different reasons for assassination attempts. You brought up Lincoln and Kennedy, but look at Franklin D. Roosevelt who was (and is) considered one of the best and most popular U.S. presidents; the attempt on his life was by a man who blamed capitalism and the president for his inability to find work. The attempt on Harry Truman's life was by two men hoping for a political revolution in which Puerto Rico would gain its independence. James Garfield was shot by a man who had supported his presidency and who mistakenly believed that his support had earned him a political appointment. William McKinley was shot by a self-professed (and unapologetic) anarchist. In each case the popularity (or otherwise) of these presidents was not an issue. Still, as I said, it can be a legitimate argument to claim that a person may have been assassinated because he was disliked (how about Caligula? ). I don't believe it was the case with Alexander, but that is just one opinion amongst many.

Best regards,

[the_accursed]

It is a false syllogism to argue that assassins dislike their victims and Alexander was a victim of assassination attempts, therefore Alexander was generally disliked.

That's not an honest summary of my position in this discussion.

There were assassination attempts and mutinies. Do mutinies also not say something about what the soldiers think about their leader? And how were the assassination attempts and the mutiny at Opis justified?

Did the soldiers love that Alexander claimed he was the son of a god, that he adopted Persian customs, that he killed a number of his generals and soldiers? Was this “business as usual” for the Macedonians? Did these actions inspire love and loyalty? Or did they result in assassination attempts and mutinies?

Ultimately, I'm not saying I can know what Alexander's exact “favorability rating” would have been among the Macedonians when he died, though I believe it would have been low. All I'm saying is that with two previous assassination attempts, and a mutiny just the year before Alexander died, murder as a possible cause of his death can't reasonably be ruled out.

[Taphoi]

I do happen to share your opinion that Alexander was still loved by the majority of the army at the time of his death, but I believe that at the time of the Pages' conspiracy it was the conflict regarding his "Persianizing" which brought about the assassination attempt . Although I can understand Hermolaus' anger at Alexander over the flogging and it may, indeed, have been his justification for the act, I find it difficult to believe that all the other pages were pulled into an assassination plot out of mere indignation and friendship. Curtius does say that Hermolaus and Sostratus "were discreet in selecting the people they would invite to join the conspiracy" (8.6.9) and although he tells us later that they did not waver in their intent due to "their common resentment towards Alexander or their loyalty to each other", he does not elaborate on what brought about that common resentment. It had to have been more than a flogging for surely they knew they could not get away with such a major crime based solely on retaliation. Teenagers they may have been, but even teenagers have the sense to know that actions bring about consequences. For them to think that they would survive an assassination attempt on Alexander surely indicates a belief that it would be welcomed by those not included in the conspiracy. Perhaps they did listen to gossip in the camps; I've no doubt that at this stage of the long campaign there were some disgruntled men, unhappy at the "honored" treatment of the vanquished and still unaccepting of the change in leadership style. However, the older, more mature members of the army had already learned what would happen to malcontents after the trial of Philotas, so if they spoke of their discontent within their own tents I doubt they imagined how it might be interpreted by their sons in the service of Alexander. The fact that some soldiers were unhappy on some level does not mean that they wished to kill and replace Alexander! Any such misconception on the part of the Pages could be put down to the folly of youth. So, for my part, I hold it more likely that the traditionalist views in the camp brought about the shared conspiracy and that the flogging was simply the catalyst.

The coterie of 6 or 8 conspirators seems to have been selected either because they were boyfriends or ex-boyfriends of existing conspirators or because they also harboured known grudges against the king. Of course the plot was rationalised in terms of the widespread dissent over the Policy of Fusion. Of course there was a large traditionalist faction (probably even a majority) among the Macedonians that opposed Fusion. But, as you say, the latter were not disloyal and would not have supported killing Alexander (the associated crisis would have been acutely dangerous foe everyone). They would on the other hand have been unscrupulous in exploiting Alexander’s death to seek the enslavement of the Persians. I think you are being too rational in assuming that the conspirators thought they could necessarily avoid death, if successful. They felt personally outraged – Sostratus was apparently more outraged than Hermolaus himself. It seems that Alexander was normally rather mild in his treatment of the Pages, so the flogging and horse-removal rankled all the more bitterly. Teenagers are not necessarily perfectly rational in their behaviour and these teenagers don’t seem to have thought much beyond their immediate objective: revenge. I would suggest that the conspiracy would not have happened without the flogging. That was what turned mild resentment into murderous intent. The difference between us on this point seems to be one of emphasis rather than substance.

Although I'm not taking up the cause for Alexander's death by assassination I must say that it's rarely as simple as whether or not the victims were generally liked or disliked, although either reason can be used to support an argument – a quick examination of Roman history will demonstrate both sides of the coin. Otoh, there are many different reasons for assassination attempts. You brought up Lincoln and Kennedy, but look at Franklin D. Roosevelt who was (and is) considered one of the best and most popular U.S. presidents; the attempt on his life was by a man who blamed capitalism and the president for his inability to find work. The attempt on Harry Truman's life was by two men hoping for a political revolution in which Puerto Rico would gain its independence. James Garfield was shot by a man who had supported his presidency and who mistakenly believed that his support had earned him a political appointment. William McKinley was shot by a self-professed (and unapologetic) anarchist. In each case the popularity (or otherwise) of these presidents was not an issue. Still, as I said, it can be a legitimate argument to claim that a person may have been assassinated because he was disliked (how about Caligula? ). I don't believe it was the case with Alexander, but that is just one opinion amongst many.

My position is that assassination attempts do not intrinsically correlate with the popularity of a leader: he or she may or may not be generally disliked, but you would have to argue the popularity issue on wider grounds. Caligula was indeed highly unpopular with a wide section of the Roman elite, but he was still quite popular with the people in general and the bulk of the army. And again his assassination was instigated by personal grudges and concerns. Nero, who had lost general popularity through excessive taxation, was instead the victim of a more widely based coup d’etat.

Do mutinies also not say something about what the soldiers think about their leader?

Mutiny is a misleading term for these events. In truth they were strikes rather than mutinies. The soldiers refused to obey some orders, but they did not try to capture or kill Alexander or any of their officers. Both so-called mutinies were resolved in a friendly fashion. The first real mutiny occurred after Alexander’s death, when the infantry (aligned with the traditionalist faction) tried to seize power by force.

Did the soldiers love that Alexander claimed he was the son of a god, that he adopted Persian customs, that he killed a number of his generals and soldiers? Was this “business as usual” for the Macedonians?

Yes, it was very much business as usual if you look at preceding and succeeding reigns. Philip II also claimed divinity. Whereas Alexander executed a handful of his troops in circumstances where they had clearly disobeyed orders, Antigonus Monophthalmus arranged the deaths of the entire corps of the Silver Shields, perhaps three thousand men, when they had not mutinied, but were obedient to his orders.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Paralus]

It appears that, when snookered on one table, the "Policy of Fusion" changes to another.

The sources are clear - Arrian in particular - and rather repetitive on the Macedonians' grievances. To reduce the Hermolaus consiracy to a whipped page is to ignore the fuller accounts and the grievances raised therein. As Amyntoros writes, it is difficult to imagine a group of pages courting certain death simply because one was whipped. Although not noted (for there is no reason to), Heromlaus can hardly have been the only page ever so treated if we go by Philip's record.

[Taphoi]

It appears that, when snookered on one table, the "Policy of Fusion" changes to another.

I had no idea that there was a game of snooker underway here. Can anyone spot the balls?

The sources are clear - Arrian in particular - and rather repetitive on the Macedonians' grievances. To reduce the Hermolaus consiracy to a whipped page is to ignore the fuller accounts and the grievances raised therein. As Amyntoros writes, it is difficult to imagine a group of pages courting certain death simply because one was whipped. Although not noted (for there is no reason to), Heromlaus can hardly have been the only page ever so treated if we go by Philip's record.

I note that I have already agreed that the conspirators rationalised their plot in terms of the broad resentments of the traditionalist faction. However, it would be wrong to trivialise the significance of the flogging. I actually agree with Amyntoros’s word catalyst, but I would probably call it the essential catalyst. I also believe Amyntoros was wise to cite an example of a case where the perpetrator (Charles Guiteau) was motivated by a matter that might seem trivial to others: “James Garfield was shot by a man who had supported his presidency and who mistakenly believed that his support had earned him a political appointment.” Humans are (perhaps fortunately) curious, irrational creatures and teenage boys doubly so. It seems that floggings were otherwise rare or unheard of under Alexander, who says so himself at Curtius 8.8.4.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Paralus]

I note that I have already agreed that the conspirators rationalised their plot in terms of the broad resentments of the traditionalist faction. However, it would be wrong to trivialise the significance of the flogging.

I note that you have only - as ever - agreed with yourself. You interpret the (copious) source material on the matter as mere rationalisation of an act; the flogging being the only driving motive. Your entire premise is built upon a page who mangaged to convince other pages that they should assassinate the king because he'd been flogged. Flogged for breaking what was, seemingly, well known etiquette if not rules.

All the other motives, clearly related by Hermolaus, are nothing but playing to the "broad sentiments of traditionalist faction".

It seems that floggings were otherwise rare or unheard of under Alexander, who says so himself at Curtius 8.8.4.

Alexander says nothing of the sort: these are the words Curtius has written for him. If you gullibly accept this as verbatim then you've no choice but to accept everything Curtius puts into the mouth of Hermolaus. Such does not suit your reading to a purpose though. You might also be constrained to believe Amyntas son of Andromones, the former royal hypaspist, who provides clear evidence of Macedonians refusing to travel east and serve their beloved king.

Alexander III, at Curtius 8.8.19, says:
Were he [Callisthenes] a Macedonian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worthy of his pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian and does not enjoy the same rights.

And, thus, Olythians have no place in Alexander's "Policy of Fusion" or brotherhood of man and do not enjoy "the same rights": they are second class citizens. Nothing could more clearly state the ruling Macedonian elite and it is difficult to countenance Persians and other Asians having such "rights" under any "Policy of Fusion" when Greeks did not. But, of course, it is Curtius who puts this into Alexander's mouth or is it Taphoi?

The Hyphasis mutiny was most certainly that. To describe it in terms of being a "strike" where the "soldiers refused to obey some orders, but they did not try to capture or kill Alexander or any of their officers" is pure sophistry. The Macedonian king is at the extremety of his expanding conquests and his army refuses to move. Alexander is in hostile territory and his only protection - his army - refuses to follow orders. One can well imagine Admiral Jellicoe off Jutland receiving word that the German High Seas Fleet is just over the horizon in battle line. Jellicoe orders battle stations and the crews refuse to follow orders. No worries: it's simply a "strike" and we'll return to port. Hydaspes was a refusal - in the field - to follow orders; mutiny plain and simple.

I would, though, agree that Opis was nothing of the sort. This was not in the field and related far more to a severe venting of spleen by the Macedonians against their king. They were, in fact, being demobbed and the the notion brought their long held grievances against Alexander to the fore. Unlike Hydaspes, Alexander had his counter phalanx: the epigoni. He no longer needed these Macedonians. A card he proceeded to play as well as any card shark. The Macedonians buckled and were duly superannuated, eventually, into Diadoch service.

The Grievances were very real: they are enumerated many times throughout the sources. It is well to note - as did Arrian - that the Persians placed into units with Macedonian names were Persian only. There was no "fusion" of these men into combined units other than a hipparchy of the cavalry, a separate troop of Persian nobles in the cavalry agema and Alexander's "make do" mixed phalanx.

Antigonus Monophthalmus arranged the deaths of the entire corps of the Silver Shields, perhaps three thousand men, when they had not mutinied, but were obedient to his orders.

That, I'm afraid, is not certain. The hostile tradition with respect to this merely states that Antigonus broke them up and sent them to what might be called "satrapal" duties. Some 1,000 were said to be sent to Arachosia to "be worn out".

It is far more likely that these former hypaspists, their corporate identity removed by their forced break-up, were sent to duty in the provinces. There is no good reason for Antigonus not using such experienced troops; he was not about to leave them as a single unit though.

[Taphoi]

Alexander III, at Curtius 8.8.19, says:
Were he [Callisthenes] a Macedonian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worthy of his pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian and does not enjoy the same rights.

And, thus, Olythians have no place in Alexander's "Policy of Fusion" or brotherhood of man and do not enjoy "the same rights": they are second class citizens. Nothing could more clearly state the ruling Macedonian elite and it is difficult to countenance Persians and other Asians having such "rights" under any "Policy of Fusion" when Greeks did not. But, of course, it is Curtius who puts this into Alexander's mouth or is it Taphoi?.

The Latin is

nunc Olynthio non idem iuris est

It is unfortunate that this has been given a pejorative spin in the English translation with the word "enjoy", which is not in the Latin. The Latin literally only means that "being Olynthian he does not come under the same jurisdiction." It was in fact a neutral statement of the legal position that the Macedonian Assembly was not the correct body to try Callisthenes, since he was not Macedonian. It specifically does not mean that he had no right to a trial: that is the whole point of idem, which would be unnecessary, if Alexander were trying to say that Callisthenes had no rights.

Antigonus Monophthalmus arranged the deaths of the entire corps of the Silver Shields, perhaps three thousand men, when they had not mutinied, but were obedient to his orders.

That, I'm afraid, is not certain. The hostile tradition with respect to this merely states that Antigonus broke them up and sent them to what might be called "satrapal" duties. Some 1,000 were said to be sent to Arachosia to "be worn out".

It is far more likely that these former hypaspists, their corporate identity removed by their forced break-up, were sent to duty in the provinces. There is no good reason for Antigonus not using such experienced troops; he was not about to leave them as a single unit though.

Eumenes thus slain, on no other man than Antigonus did Heaven devolve the punishment of the soldiers and commanders who betrayed him, but he himself, regarding the Silver-shields as impious and bestial men, put them into the violence of Sibyrtius the governor of Arachosia, ordering him to wear them out and destroy them in every possible way, that not a man of them might ever return to Macedonia or behold the Grecian sea.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Paralus]

The Latin is

nunc Olynthio non idem iuris est

It is unfortunate that this has been given a pejorative spin in the English translation with the word "enjoy", which is not in the Latin. The Latin literally only means that "being Olynthian he does not come under the same jurisdiction." It was in fact a neutral statement of the legal position that the Macedonian Assembly was not the correct body to try Callisthenes, since he was not Macedonian. It specifically does not mean that he had no right to a trial…

Curtius 8.8.20-21:
With that Alexander closed the meeting and had the condemned men transferred to members of their own unit. The latter tortured them to death so that they would gain the king's approval by their cruelty. [21] Callisthenes also died under torture. He was innocent of any plot to kill the king, but the sycophantic character of court life ill-suited his nature.

It is a pity that Callisthenes did not have the benefit of a pedantic interpreter such as yourself. Curtius’ account – which is here accepted on the basis of your uncritical quotation of what “Alexander said” – clearly shows that there was no trial of any nature for Callisthenes: Alexander simply had him tortured and killed. I would therefore suggest that the "pejorative spin" is the correct interpretation.

Arrian, quoting Ptolemy, supports this:

Arrian 4.14.3:
but Ptolemy, son of Lagus, says that he was stretched upon the rack and then hanged.

Perhaps Alexander was ignorant of the “correct body”? More likely he simply had him liquidated as he did Parmenion. Some are more "brothers" than others under "Fusion".

Eumenes thus slain, on no other man than Antigonus did Heaven devolve the punishment of the soldiers and commanders who betrayed him, but he himself, regarding the Silver-shields as impious and bestial men, put them into the violence of Sibyrtius the governor of Arachosia, ordering him to wear them out and destroy them in every possible way, that not a man of them might ever return to Macedonia or behold the Grecian sea.

I note that of the source material available on the matter, you select only that which suits your view. How unsurprising.

Plutarch’s Eumenes ecompasses a source tradition overtly hostile not only to the Argyraspides but also to their commander Antigenes. The probability is that Hieronymus is that source. This also, though only for the Argyraspides, finds its way into Diodorus.

Plutarch portrays Antigenes as contriving to betray the Cardian to Antigonus. This tradition is against all the other evidence available (particularly Diodorus) which clearly shows him as a supporter of the royal cause via Eumenes. In the Aftermath of Gabiene, though, it is only Teutamos who does the betraying. Antigenes is, unfortunately, burned alive in a pit.

This same tradition lumps all the Argyrapsides into the one basket and has them all destroyed by Antigonus. This too is incorrect:

Diod.19.48.3:
From Arachosia he summoned Sibyrtius, who was well disposed to him, permitted him to retain the satrapy, and assigned to him the most turbulent of the Silver Shields, ostensibly that they might be useful in the war, but in reality to insure their destruction; for he privately directed the satrap to send a few of them at a time on duties in which they were bound to be killed.

Polyaenus 4.6.15:
Antigonus liberally rewarded the Silver Shields, who had delivered up Eumenes to him as his prisoner. But to guard against a similar act of perfidy towards himself, he ordered a thousand of them to serve under Sibyrtius governor of Arachosia. Others he disposed of in garrisons, in remote and uncultivated countries. And thus he very soon got rid of them all.

“Most turbulent” clearly does not mean all three thousand and Antigonus clearly breaks them up so as they are no longer a corporate identity and thus easier to manage. We may take “liberally rewarded” as meaning that they received all their baggage as well as their families and “got rid of them all” as distributing them amongst the satrapies as, once again, the elimination of such experienced troops is unlikely .

The choice of one thousand for Arachosia is understandable. The Indian satrapies were in disorder with the murder of Porus and the aggrandising of Peithon did little stabilise matters. Significantly, although Antigonus left Oxyartes in Parapamisadae, he made no arrangements for Porus’ “satrapry”. It is likely that India had largely, by now, slipped the Macedonians’ grasp and that Arachosia was faced with significant border problems.

What is clear, though, is that Antigonus did not "arrange for the deaths" of the 3,000 former hypaspaspists; he arranged for them to be dispersed to satrapal duty. Hieronymus may have enjoyed the fact that 1,000 of them faced border war and hard campaigning in Arachosia far from the Grecian sea but for Plutarch's moralising point, the whole 3,000 must go. Diodorus is the more reliable - for the history of the campaign as well as this incident.

[the_accursed]

Mutiny is a misleading term for these events. In truth they were strikes rather than mutinies. The soldiers refused to obey some orders, but they did not try to capture or kill Alexander or any of their officers. Both so-called mutinies were resolved in a friendly fashion. The first real mutiny occurred after Alexander’s death, when the infantry (aligned with the traditionalist faction) tried to seize power by force.

A friendly fashion in your opinon. But what's particularly interesting with the mutiny (as I perceive it) at Opis is not just that it happened but how it was justified. That the accusations made against Alexander were essentially the accusations of Cleitus and of those who had tried to assassinate Alexander, says something about how common these opinions were among the soldiers, and about Alexander's popularity the year before he died.

Yes, it was very much business as usual if you look at preceding and succeeding reigns. Philip II also claimed divinity. Whereas Alexander executed a handful of his troops in circumstances where they had clearly disobeyed orders, Antigonus Monophthalmus arranged the deaths of the entire corps of the Silver Shields, perhaps three thousand men, when they had not mutinied, but were obedient to his orders.

It wasn't business as usual. Philip may have placed a statue of himself among statues of the gods, but he didn't try to introduce proskynesis. Nor did he adopt other non-Macedonian customs or murder Macedonian generals and soldiers. If Alexander's actions had been considered business as usual, it wouldn't have become a meme afterwards that Alexander had become corrupted by fortune.

[Semiramis]

Nothing to do with Callisthenes? Alexander's Persianizing tendencies?

In the first instance the sources are clear that it was the flogging. I think we understand why. Hermolaus needed to kill his boar to achieve the ability to recline at supper, but was short of opportunities. Instead of talking the matter through with Alexander, he simply slew the first boar that came his way, despite royal etiquette, which is classic behaviour by teenagers. Alexander had no choice but to treat it as insubordination. You might say he should have been more sensitive to the issue beforehand, but that would be to apply 20:20 hindsight. Obviously, the traditionalist complaints against Alexander’s Policy of Fusion then arose in the trial and played a supporting role. Are the traditionalists to be admired? Their basic premise was that Persians were barbarians and should be treated as second-class citizens in their own country. Their central complaint against Alexander was that he treated the Persians too well and even admired aspects of their culture. As for Callisthenes, he does not seem to have actually been in the plot, but he does seem slyly to have encouraged Hermolaus in his rebellious tendencies – probably because of his disillusion over the proskynesis issue.

It is a false syllogism to argue that assassins dislike their victims and Alexander was a victim of assassination attempts, therefore Alexander was generally disliked. In fact, it is often the most popular leaders who are targeted by assassins. It is their very popularity that makes it impossible for the assassins to remove them from their positions by more legitimate means and drives them to resort to murder. Consider whether you think the less of presidents Lincoln or Kennedy for the sake of their assassins?

Best wishes,

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I think Accursed's point is that Alexander was not universally loved by his soldiers. This is such a common-sense statement it is almost a platitude. Let's just say that you, Accursed and I all seem to agree that this is the case, perhaps to differing degrees. Alexander was probably overall pretty popular with his Macedonian troops during and after his death. I think the biggest support for this idea of this comes from the fact that the Successors used his name and image to legitimize their claims in propaganda. Some of the conquered subjects of said benevolent empire were, of course, perhaps ungrateful enough to have already nicknamed him the Accursed.

In the first instance the sources are clear that it was the flogging.

No, the sources are not clear that the Pages' Conspiracy resulted only from the flogging. They state that Alexander's treatment of Persians and his perceived fondness of Persian culture was a matter of resentment for many, perhaps the majority of Macedonians. Given the climate in the court, I don't believe the Pages' conspiracy was simply a matter of personal pride and outraged lovers. Moreover, it was a broad conspiracy involving several privileged individuals at court. Given that Royal Pages would be well-versed in court protocol, it's hard to imagine such a degree of support for the murder plot arising only from feelings of friendship. The individuals themselves are pretty vocal about their motivations in the trial. I feel you almost contradict yourself when you say

Obviously, the traditionalist complaints against Alexander’s Policy of Fusion then arose in the trial and played a supporting role.

and

As for Callisthenes, he does not seem to have actually been in the plot, but he does seem slyly to have encouraged Hermolaus in his rebellious tendencies – probably because of his disillusion over the proskynesis issue.

Let's assume for a moment that the topic of Alexander's Persianizing only came up in the trial to garner sympathy (something I don't believe). You are still arguing that the Macedonians at the trial were so unhappy with Alexander's Persianizing that the accused boys thought it a good idea bring up during an attempted assassination trial. So, it almost supports Accursed's original point.

In some of the other parts of your post, I feel you are arguing against strawmen.

I think we understand why. Hermolaus needed to kill his boar to achieve the ability to recline at supper, but was short of opportunities. Instead of talking the matter through with Alexander, he simply slew the first boar that came his way, despite royal etiquette, which is classic behaviour by teenagers. Alexander had no choice but to treat it as insubordination. You might say he should have been more sensitive to the issue beforehand, but that would be to apply 20:20 hindsight.

No, I will not say that Alexander should have been more sensitive to the matter. Royal protocol is there to be followed to the tee. Otherwise royalty would be even more naked as the flimsy pretext of domination and exploitation that it is.

Obviously, the traditionalist complaints against Alexander’s Policy of Fusion then arose in the trial and played a supporting role. Are the traditionalists to be admired? Their basic premise was that Persians were barbarians and should be treated as second-class citizens in their own country. Their central complaint against Alexander was that he treated the Persians too well and even admired aspects of their culture.

I have not and nor will I ever argue that people who espouse that any ethnicity should be treated as second-class citizens - now or in the past - should be admired. It would display a fundamental misunderstanding of Alexander's career if to argue that the Persians were anything other than second-class citizens after these conquests. That is the nature of conquest and empire. The conquerors position themselves at the top of the ethnic hierarchy. The Persians seem to have done the same after their conquests. The sources are clear that Alexander's treatment of Persians (though far from Equal to the Macedonians) was a source of consternation among many of the Macedonians. Stating that does not mean one admires the views of these Macedonians.

It is a false syllogism to argue that assassins dislike their victims and Alexander was a victim of assassination attempts, therefore Alexander was generally disliked.

No one is arguing that any and all assassination attempts are a sign of unpopularity. Che Guevara, for example was an extremely popular figure, but was assassinated. It was not a sign of his level of support but rather result of global politics. Gandhi is another example of a popular figure who was assassinated.

In fact, it is often the most popular leaders who are targeted by assassins. It is their very popularity that makes it impossible for the assassins to remove them from their positions by more legitimate means and drives them to resort to murder. Consider whether you think the less of presidents Lincoln or Kennedy for the sake of their assassins?

No one is arguing that assassination attempts should be used to "think less" of the targets. For these attempts to indicate anything one must look at the specific context. The Lincoln assassination was an attempt to rally the Confederate States. It's easy to argue the motivation would have had popular support in the Southern states after the bitter Civil war. So, the motivations of his assassin happened to coincide with the mood in a large part of that nation. It is much more difficult to pin down the motivations for the Kennedy assassination on the other hand. The accused denied the charges, hence there was no discussion of his motivation. So I don't know if the Kennedy assassination adds much to this discussion. It's almost impossible to tell if Kennedy's unpopularity in states where he forced de-segragation or Cold War foreign policies were factors at all.

In contrast, the Pages' attempt on Alexander's life encompassed broad conspiracy by several privileged individuals at the court. They themselves cite a motivation that would have had popular backing among the Macedonians. I think it's valid to argue that taken as a whole, this situation can be seen as a sign of significant discontent with that specific aspect of policy. So, it can be misleading to try and construe parallels to the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. Even in regards to your other point - there are legitimate ways of removing elected leaders like Lincoln or Kennedy. For example, not voting for them in the next election. This simply does not apply to a king and conqueror. Perhaps the story of Harmodius and Aristogiton would have been a more appropriate choice?

[Semiramis]

Philip II also claimed divinity.

Not the same!

[Taphoi]

The Latin is

nunc Olynthio non idem iuris est

It is unfortunate that this has been given a pejorative spin in the English translation with the word "enjoy", which is not in the Latin. The Latin literally only means that "being Olynthian he does not come under the same jurisdiction." It was in fact a neutral statement of the legal position that the Macedonian Assembly was not the correct body to try Callisthenes, since he was not Macedonian. It specifically does not mean that he had no right to a trial…

Curtius 8.8.20-21:
With that Alexander closed the meeting and had the condemned men transferred to members of their own unit. The latter tortured them to death so that they would gain the king's approval by their cruelty. [21] Callisthenes also died under torture. He was innocent of any plot to kill the king, but the sycophantic character of court life ill-suited his nature.

It is a pity that Callisthenes did not have the benefit of a pedantic interpreter such as yourself. Curtius’ account – which is here accepted on the basis of your uncritical quotation of what “Alexander said” – clearly shows that there was no trial of any nature for Callisthenes: Alexander simply had him tortured and killed. I would therefore suggest that the "pejorative spin" is the correct interpretation.

Again you need to look at the Latin in Curtius: Callisthenes quoque tortus interiit. This does not have to mean more than that "Callisthenes also died in torment". This is not inconsistent with the most credible of the various accounts of Callisthenes' end (Plutarch thought so and I agree with him, because Chares was uniquely in a position to know the truth):

Chares says that after his arrest Callisthenes was kept in fetters seven months, that he might be tried before a full council when Aristotle was present, but that about the time when Alexander was wounded in India, he died from obesity and the disease of lice.

Thus in fact Alexander probably intended a trial should take place.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

Philip II also claimed divinity.

Not the same!

I fear that you are drawing a very fine distinction. As Bosworth notes, "More significant is the fact, unimpeachably attested, that the people of Eresus in Lesbos erected altars to Zeus Philippios... the sacrifices made to Zeus were also in a sense offered to Philip." They could not have done this without Philip's tacit approval. It seems the only difference we might draw is that Alexander went for Son of Zeus, whilst Philip went for Zeus himself. It is almost as if Philip had validated his son's claim through his own.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

No, the sources are not clear that the Pages' Conspiracy resulted only from the flogging. They state that Alexander's treatment of Persians and his perceived fondness of Persian culture was a matter of resentment for many, perhaps the majority of Macedonians.

Alexander ordered that Hermolaus, a highborn lad from the royal band, be lashed, since he had skewered a wild boar earmarked by his monarch for his own spear. Hermolaus began bitterly to bewail his shaming to Sostratus, who was his fellow bandmember and fervent lover. When he beheld the body for which he burned so badly lacerated, being perchance already sore with his sovereign on some other account, Sostratus convinced the youth, who was vexed of his own volition, to exchange vows and to conspire with him in killing the king.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Semiramis]

No, the sources are not clear that the Pages' Conspiracy resulted only from the flogging. They state that Alexander's treatment of Persians and his perceived fondness of Persian culture was a matter of resentment for many, perhaps the majority of Macedonians.

Alexander ordered that Hermolaus, a highborn lad from the royal band, be lashed, since he had skewered a wild boar earmarked by his monarch for his own spear. Hermolaus began bitterly to bewail his shaming to Sostratus, who was his fellow bandmember and fervent lover. When he beheld the body for which he burned so badly lacerated, being perchance already sore with his sovereign on some other account, Sostratus convinced the youth, who was vexed of his own volition, to exchange vows and to conspire with him in killing the king.

I won't repeat the arguments about what this other account may be.