Ptolomy - son of Philip?

[amyntoros]

Very well said, Andrew. I see your point and you've given me much to think about. Appreciate your time with these responses. Thanks! :-)Linda Ann

[xxx]

It is in my view far more likely if one believes that Ptolemy was Philip's issue, that it would have happened after his return from Thebes. But then again, I think there's very good reason to doubt he was Ptolemy's father, in view of what happened after the King's death. Clearly, there were an awful lot of Macedonians who did not consider him to be an Argead male. Of course what his mother told him and what Macedonians believed could very well be different.Regards,Tre

[Taphoi]

The issue in respect of inheritance was Ptolemy's legitimacy, not his paternity. There were probably lots of illegitimate boys that Philip was believed to have fathered, though Ptolemy may well have been the eldest. If the Macedonians allowed illegitimate sons to inherit, they would have been opening the floodgates. Many of the senior Macedonians would also have fathered illegitimate sons. As an example of how seriously the issue was taken, see Plutarch, Alexander 9, where the mere sideways hint that Alexander was not legitimate instigated a flaming rage in the prince, that led to his temporary exile. I think that many modern US and European citizens would agree with you that a prince in his late teens would be more likely to father a son than a 14 year old prince. Unfortunately, I doubt whether a member of the 4th century BC Macedonian court would agree with you on this point. Also Lucian's date for Ptolemy's birth does fit neatly between Philip's stint as a hostage in Illyria in about 370BC and that in Thebes from the second half of 368BC. Best wishes, Andrew

[xxx]

Good points all Andrew, but here is my interpretation. The issue would have been were you a competent Argead male out of an Argead king, in particular if there was a lack of proper Argeads left to inherit. I do want to stress the point of being the son of an Argead King rather than just an Argead male. There is no logical reason to assume that the Macedonians would have accepted an addled Argead male over an apparently normal one unless his claim to be Philip's son was thought to be dubious, particularly a general and a bodyguard of Alexander with that King just recently deceased. That Ptolemy is called GÇÿ son of LagusGÇÖ is more than mere suggestion there was a question. I am quite suspicious of the comment that Philip had many sons made by Justin. Then why no more than two legitimate? I also think it unlikely due to the turbulence of the Argead court that it would ever be in the best interests of a long life if you attempted to have children before you were old enough to defend yourself from your own family members. ItGÇÖs not that I have a modern interpretation of when males father children in our society but rather a logical interpretation of what would have happened to a 14 year old Argead with two older brothers and half-brothers who could and probably would become King before him and he could be GÇÿoffedGÇÖ for the slightest offense. The incident at the wedding feast GÇô there was no question that Alexander was legitimate, so this would have been a reference to Alexander not being PhilipGÇÖs son. There is no question that a legitimate son held sway over one who was illegitimate, but when one was afflicted and the other not? Illogical. The logos of the prostitute and the young Alexander is also questionable on several points, and if one believes it is legitimate, Alexander was the only acceptable heir at the time and she was a prostitute. Then one would have to question why Herakles had to be killed if he had no chance to inherit. I believe he was killed because he was the son of an Argead King and therefore always a danger.Regards,Tre

[amyntoros]

"Then one would have to question why Herakles had to be killed if he had no chance to inherit. I believe he was killed because he was the son of an Argead King and therefore always a danger."That's a very good point, and though I have nothing further to add to this right now, I'm waiting with interest to see Andrew's response, (and I am thoroughly enjoying and appreciating this thread.) :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[Taphoi]

Philip-Arrhidaeus only became a king because of the power struggle between the cavalry and the infantry at Babylon in the aftermath of Alexander's death. Meleager, the leader of the infantry, found him a pliant tool in his struggle against the cavalry led by Perdiccas. He subsequently emerged as joint king with Alexander IV, because that was the compromise that reconciled the cavalry and the infantry. In the context Philip-Arrhidaeus' supporters actually found it convenient that he was retarded. Ptolemy was too sensible to try to press a claim. Again it shows the pre-eminence of legitimate heirs, that Nearchus was shouted down when he tried to put Heracles forward as a candidate at Babylon. Heracles only re-emerged as a candidate when everyone was sure that Alexander IV was dead. The fact that Cassander then so easily persuaded Polyperchon to murder Heracles suggests that Polyperchon and his men did not have full confidence in the viability of his claim to the throne, because of his illegitimacy. According to Plutarch, Alexander said to Attalus, "Do you take me for a bastard?" The word he used was nothos, which seems to mean specifically an illegitimate son. There is no way with Philip actually present that he could be asking if Attalus was questioning whether Philip was really his father. He must be referring to the status of his mother's marriage to Philip, which was a bit dodgy at that time. Best wishes, Andrew

[xxx]

Hello again Andrew:Herakles would have been shouted down because the generals were not interested in finding an heir and he was a small child. However, that Nearchus would put him forward more than suggests that illegitimate sons of a King were to be taken seriously. When Arrhideous was backed the rest of them must have been shocked. The Persian brides were purged because they presented the clearest danger to what the generals envisioned as their new kingdom. Roxane could not be done away with because she was pregnant and in Babylon at the time. No one was going to make a move on her or Herakles and risk reprisals with the King so recently dead. Alexander gave the ring to Perdikkas which he clearly failed to capitalize on properly. The fact that Potlemy did not put himself forward as the legitimate heir suggests to me he did not feel comfortable in making such an assertion publically. Of course it was indeed rare for an Argead King to actually pick the heir because they rarely died of natural causes. It is one of those great ironies that Alexander was one of the few.I rather read the interpretations of what happened at the dinner party to be Athenian misinterpretation. They confuse the whole situation with 'divorce.' Alexander was born to Olympias when she was married to Philip. The only way he could be called illegitimate is if his father disowned him as a son. That Philip backed Attalus at the insult is very illuminating. Clearly the gears had been put in motion to distance Alexander from the crown that such a thing could be said publically. Note we have no evidence that Cleopatra was affected in any way which is what would be expected if Olympias was the one being disowned. Alexander being disowned by Philip meant complete disgrace for Olympias and any status she had among the wives went down the toilet and she was now fair game for the rest of them and in a good amount of danger. Unfortunately for Alexander he was also heir to the Epirot Kingship as well so I suspect he was not welcomed by Uncle Alexander hence his going to Illyria.In hindsight a King later figures out his friends are not necessarily who they appear to be and you can't have an Argead heir running around loose not under your control behind you if you attack Asia, hence his having to ask Alexander to come back and Attalus having to be out of the Kingdom to do it.Regards,Tre

[Taphoi]

Nearchus put forward Heracles' claim because he was was related to him by marriage. As a Cretan he probably wasn't too familiar with Macedonian inheritance law and misjudged the reaction of his audience. It was the ordinary Macedonians who shouted him down, rather than the generals. Attalus' words were not as specific to the issue of legitimacy as Alexander's reply was. He spoke of a "lawful successor" being born to Philip and Cleopatra. It has been suggested that he was alluding to the fact that Olympias was a foreigner in contrast to the pure-blooded offspring he hoped would come from the new marriage. Plutarch says he was drunk and Philip was clearly drunk too. The fact that Philip made the first move to end the quarrel with Alexander is a tacit admission that the prince had had good cause to be upset. Best wishes, Andrew

[xxx]

Greetings Andrew:I am aware Nearchus was related by marriage to Herakles, but he was certainly not unfamiliar with Macedonian inheritance practices. It's not like he didn't experience the thing before. His mistake was in taking a position to put forward a child. It did not help that the Macedonians at every level were not fond of Persians because of Alexander's attempts to treat them as equals. That did not set well with them and in this unique instance, it wasn't the best timing for Herakles.As for Olympias' get not being of pure blood - this is an argument easily dismissed. Philip was half Illyrian and half Macedonian - did anyone question his right to be King? Or his two brothers? It was the father's blood in the Argead clan that counted. What Philip did was marry into a clan that explicitly disliked his heir and he was willing to make that sacrifice for whatever gain he thought he would get. The talk of Alexander being fathered by a God instead of Philip may well be a twist on gossip put forward that he was not Philip's get. It sounds absurd on the surface to us now, but then it meant everything to Alexander's position and future. Had it been the mere mistake of things said by drunks, I doubt Alexander would have fled the Kingdom with his mother unless he took the threat dead serious. My own take on the situation is that Philip at this time began to regard his own son as a threat. Philiphad to know what was coming up behind him, and it had to give him pause. Besides, what use did he have for an heir old enough to inherit anyway? Then he becomes a rival and no longer a son.Thank you for the stimulating discussion Andrew! You know your stuff I could go on and on, but at the risk of me boring Forum members with trivialities, I guess I better stop now. Regards,Tre

[susan]

I've a feeling that Ptolemy was a bastard of one of Philip's brothers - an Argead, but not really close enough to Philip to count sufficiently.On the face of it, Ptolemy seemed to have abilities more related to the Argead rulers than his unknown father. Obviously, this strays into the 'nature' versus 'nurture' argument, but he seems to have been very capable politically, and a good leader.On the face of it, Ptolemy seems to have a suitable record of achievement to say that he was a worthy Argead - his line lasted a lot longer than Alexander's, and he certainly made some shrewd moves after Alexander's death. It would make sense if this was inherited - but I've got an instinct that it wasn't from Philip.As for Nearchos' arguments, I can't really imagine that the real politicking after Alexander's death was clearly reported - what we have is a Chinese Whispers version over 2300 years, through several translations. Susan