Parmenion and Philotas

[maximus]

Hello once again,As we should all know Philotas and Parmenion were two of Alexander's best generals. Alexander once said that Parmenion and his veterans were the "backbone" of his army, this was at Thebes. Then over the ensueing campaign Alexander at one point split his army in two, leaving Parmenion with the other half. He trusted Parmenino like a brother, the same goes to Philotas. However i have always wondered what made Alexander decide to murder them. Please Enlighten me with either fact or your own thoughts, was it Alexander's paranoia?Or were there conspiracies?
Pleez reply
Ben

[jona]

This is a very complex question and there is a lot of debate. The best literature is, at the moment, to be found in the book by Sabine M++ller, *Ma+ƒnahmen der Herrschaftsicherung gegen++ber der makedonischen Opposition bei Alexander dem Gro+ƒen* (2003 Frankfurt a.M.), which is a must-read anyhow.My own, pre-M++ller views can be found at http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander11.html (scroll down a bit). I will update this site in the not too distant future.On one point I must correct you. Alexander did not trust Philotas. According to Plutarch, he had asked Philotas's mistress Antigone to inform him about anything Philotas said.Jona

[dean]

Hello,
With regards trust- I think that you probably are talking about Parmenion rather than Philotas who boasted that Alexander's success was more due to his men and people like his father than anything else. Philotas had quite a chip on his shoulder I'd say. Parmenion was entrusted in Ectbatana with the Persian riches from Persepolis. So yes I'd say that Alexander did trust Parmenion A LOT.With regards the murder of both I think that the implication regarding the plot of the pages and Philotas general diposition towards Alexander made it quite easy for him to be taken out of the picture.
Parmenion was in a position of tremendous power at the time of his son's execution and of course Alexander feared that he could all too easily hit back and use the army that was under his command at Ecbatana.I think that it was a sad end personally to a great general who had fought all his life- it was a real stab in the back yet Alexander had obviously no choice.Best regards,
Dean.

[ruthaki]

I believe the Macedonians also had a rule that if one member of the family (i.e. Philotas) committed an act of treason, other family members (i.e. Parmenio) were automatically held culpable as well and executed. It was a tragic ending to this great general who had served so long under Philip before he served Alexander.

[dean]

Hello,You are quite right Ruth- there was also that as well to take into consideration- however I think that Parmenion was primarily killed to stop any uprising on Parmenion's part. I suppose that he was the most powerful man at the time of his death ,after Alexander of course.Best regards,
Dean.

[jan]

Philotas is mentioned as being with Philip when Alexander was caught singing aloud, and Philip suggested that he no longer sing. That means that Philotas is a long time close friend of the family, and the supposed betrayal by him was so hurtful that Alexander had no choice but to act as he did, letting the men pass judgement. Of course, Alexander stimulated the proceedings with his asking Philotas in which language he chose to speak, thereby, influencing the final decision.I believe that Philotas used great judgement in his self defense, but the thought that he might betray Alexander cut too deeply to ignore.

[marcus]

Hi Jona,Although you're right that Alexander wanted Antigone to keep him informed about what Philotas said, it ought to be clarified that this happened only *after* Philotas' original complaints had been reported to Alexander. Also, this happened in Egypt - there is no indication that Alexander didn't trust Philotas before then.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Although there has been a lot of debate over whether this really *was* the law. At most it appears to have been a custom rather than a law, and even so it's not entirely clear whether it was even this.(Note that the action a new king takes on his accession should not be assumed to be actions that are taken at any other time during the king's reign.)All the bestMarcus

[jona]

"Also, this happened in Egypt."You may be right, but I don't know about this. Plutarch's *Life* gives no further clue than "after Issus". Berve is not specific either .If you have evidence, please let me know; I may still be able to be a bit more precise in my book.Jona

[marcus]

Hi Jona,I'll have to check. I wouldn't have said Egypt unless I was absolutely sure it was in Egypt, so I'll have to go back and try to find out what proved to me that it was there . All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

I still haven't been able to check, Jona ... however, something else has just occurred to me - first, we know (as you say) that it was after Issus, because Antigone was captured/liberated from Damascus, by Parmenion. Some of the complaints that Philotas made, assuming that Plutarch has got them right, must have been made after the visit to the Oracle at Ammon; although I admit that there's no reason why Philotas shouldn't have made some comments to Antigone earlier than the visit to Egypt. I think the question is when Antigone was brought to Alexander with the tale, however; that is what I shall try to establish.All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

It wasn't the "law" on the legal sense of the word but it was the common practice that was followed in similar occassions. If they would be left to live they would, natuarally, spend their lives seeking revenge for what happened to their loved ones. So why let them live in the first place? At least that's how I understant this, inhuman, practise was justified. It might have been considered cruel but under no circumstances it would have been considered unexpected or unjustified with contemporary morality.
It was the practice and it continued to be for centuries after, almost till modern times.

[amyntoros]

This looks like a good time to interject with a comment or two on Paul Cartledge's new book on Alexander. We're all familiar of how a writer can put his own spin on events in Alexander's life - here's an excerpt of Cartledge's book on what he calls 'the Philotas syndrome.'"The conspiracy had been hatched some time before, possibly in Egypt, but the circumstances and timing of the denouement are revealing of Alexander's methods. Craterus, an Upper Macedonian noble who commanded one of the six battalions of Foot Companions and was also a Companion of Alexander in the intimate sense, began to lay information against Philotas in the winter of 333-2. His source of evidence for Philotas's alleged anti-Alexander treachery was his Greek mistress, but the most damning evidence he could obtain, apparently, was Philotas's boasting that Alexander's victories were really owed to himself and his father Parmenion. Philotas may also have been known to disapprove of Alexander's claim - as articulated and broadcast after his visit to Ammon's oracle in the Siwah oasis - to be the son of Zeus (or/and Ammon). He could therefore have appeared to be an obstacle to the implementation of Alexander's policy of orientalization. At any rate, his demise came a few months after Alexander, as self-proclaimed successor to the Great King of Persia, had begun to wear a modified version of Persian regal attire. Severe as it was, Philotas's extreme treatment does fit in with Alexander's general tendency to seek to rid himself of all encumbrances to the free exercise of his untrammeled will and to develop intimate attachments outside the circle of his father's appointees. The problem for Craterus and Alexander was how to get rid of a man so powerfully and deeply entrenched in the army and court. Late in 330 they were blessed with a stroke of good fortune. A conspiracy against Alexander's life led by a Macedonia called Dimnus was alleged, and it was further alleged that Philotas, although he had known about it, had failed to report it. The timing of this 'revelation' is unlikely to be accidental. Philotas had been attending to the obsequies of his brother Nicanor in Egypt and had not yet rejoined the army, which had reached Phrade in Drangiana in eastern Iran. His father Parmenion was over eight hundred miles (nearly 1,3000 kilometres) away at Ectabana in Media, where Alexander had left him in June that same year. When Philotas did return to the camp, the air was thick w

[amyntoros]

When Philotas did return to the camp, the air was thick with rumours surrounding the alleged conspiracy of Dimus. For his complicity, or neglect, Philotas was arrested on a charge of treason, tortured and put on trial before the army."So, we are supposed to believe that Alexander and a majority of the camp knew about a conspiracy against his life, but Alexander did not take any action against the conspirators until Philotas returned to camp and could therefore be implicated and charged? I don't know of any other way to interpret the above. It seems Cartledge has taken Arrian and then expanded upon it. Arrian says that "It was here too that Alexander learnt of the conspiracy of Philotas son of Parmenion. Ptolemy and Aristobulus say that it had already been reported to him earlier in Egypt, but he did not think it credible because of their long friendship, the honour he had shown to Parmenio, Philotas' father, and the trust he had reposed in Philotas himself" After this, Cartledge goes on to claim that after the trials of Philotas, Dimnus, and six associates, "Alexander had an even fatter fish to fry - or rather to catch." The fish, of course, is Parmenion.This forum has shown how we often have a different interpretation of the same event, but I'm enthralled by the way Cartledge presents his viewpoint as fact - this isn't the only incident and I've only read up to chapter five so far. I can certainly see now why the Guardian reporter who reviewed this book (and may not have read any other biography of Alexander) compared him to a Mafia thug!!!Best regards,Linda Ann

[jona]

Marcus: thanks already! You're kind.Jona