Paralus wrote:
Philotas is guilty of a serious misjudgement.
Perhaps, especially in the light of his father's apparent warnings. And one should note the excuse Curtius gives Philotas in his defence speech - namely that he and his father had often passed on such warnings before, only to be mocked.( Curtius VI.10.35)
Still, to apply a modern analogy, what do the authorities in our age do when advised of a bomb aboard a plane, knowing that the vast majority are hoaxes ?
Philotas, advised of a murder plot to take place in three days, incredibly decides to do nothing....to 'wait and see' !
This process had already begun (appointments to satrapies etc) and this episode provided the catalyst for its moving up several gears as the army structure and its command (e.g. the make up and structure of the cavalry) was remade to Alexander's design (battions no longer arranged by ethnicity for example).
Indeed, there were all too many advantages to removing the last and most powerful of 'Philip's men' .........all possible restraint, real or merely moral was removed from Alexander, and for his friends, golden opportunities to move up in the world at the expense of Parmenion's 'faction'.
That Philotas was
not part of the plot against Alexander is certain ... or at least as certain as it is possible to be this far from events. (If he was, it is strange that the plotters seemed not to know of it, and equally strange that Philotas did not eliminate them when Cebalinus came to him).
That Alexander
was 'plotting' against Parmenion's family seems equally certain - he had been keeping an eye on Philotas for a very long time - even his 'pillow talk' was passed on to Alexander via Antigone, Philotas' mistress. Here, at last, was the opportunity, presented by a 'crime of omission' to take action against the aging father and now only surviving ( and arrogantly bombastic and unpopular) son.
But a "meticulous attention to fairness" by Alexander ? Hardly ! Quite the opposite, in fact. From the time of Alexander's consultation with his 'Friends', and Philotas' condemnation - without trial - nothing 'fair' happens. The forms are observed but Philotas is given no chance whatever - all exits blocked to prevent messengers for help, or news of his arrest leaving the camp. His disappearance into HQ and subsequent appearance next day at his 'trial' in a 'wretched plight' (Curtius VI.9.25) leave little to the imagination as to what occurred in between. His very bonds were a sign to all that he was already condemned, as he himself acknowledged. Alexander himself took the role of prosecutor, and if he cynically allowed Philotas a defence, he made plain his attitude by leaving whilst he spoke, thus treating it with disdain. Even the dumbest
sarissaphoroi present must have known what was required. That night, despite 'confession' from Philotas, he is tortured again - personally by Hephaistion, Craterus and Coenus. Finally, crippled, he is carried to his execution.Both Alexander's ruthlessness and his friends cruelty bear all the hallmarks of personal revenge..... Even Curtius, no stranger to cruelty in his own time remarks; "
that his torture was continued after the confession was considered an act of cruelty". So even by the rather robust standards of ancient times, with life considerably cheaper than now, Alexander was condemned as "behaving badly".
Nor, apparently, did Alexander feel any remorse over the judicial murder of one of his closest companions and senior commanders. His attitude is revealed in a small detail. Before leaving the place, he renamed it 'Prophthasia/Anticipation'.....evidently he believed, or wished the world to believe, that in the dog-eat-dog, assassination riddled world of Macedonian dynastic politics, he had merely 'got in first'.
And if this is an example of Alexander's "meticulous attention to fairness", his 'in for a penny, in for a pound' approach in having Alexander of Lynkestis disposed of can hardly be called that - he was run through at his 'trial' by '
longche' spears, before even getting a defence out ! ( Curtius VII 1.9).
Then there is poor Cleitus, saviour of Alexander's life at Granicus, brother of his wet-nurse, and successor along with Hephaistion to Philotas' Hetairoi command - he at least had experience of cavalry command unlike Hephaistion.
Despite the various versions, some apologetic, of his death; it is clear that he was slain by Alexander in a drunken rage - an Alexander so bent on killing him that even after weapons were placed out of his reach, he managed to snatch one from a guard, and run Cleitus through. Not just 'lashing out' then, but a determined and successful attempt to commit murder, prolonged over several minutes at least.
Here, surely, is Alexander "behaving badly", even by his own standards. Achilles, whom Alexander sought to emulate, was a violent man but Homer does not have him murder those closest to him. His tutor Aristotle had taught "
the man who sins when drunk should be punished twice over, once for sinning, once for being drunk".
This time, Alexander did show remorse, probably genuine - though cynics might argue his emulation of Achilles mourning was more for the benefit of the army, and certainly his attempt at 'suicide', (even if the report is genuine) like so many, was probably never intended to be completed. In the event, the 'grunts', the sarissaphoroi, now largely of a different generation, turned out to be indifferent to the death of one of the 'old generation', and a cavalry commander anyway.....and after three days of 'penance' in his tent, normality was restored. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that this was Alexander "behaving badly". He had crossed a water-shed, Greek hero no longer, but rather Asian despot and megalomaniac. There could be no going back.