The Pixodarus Affair

[smittysmitty]

GGÇÖday Karl,

ItGÇÖs been a while. I never thought Arrhidaeus was portrayed in an irrational light by Plutarch, I actually thought it showed he had a sense of humour GÇô rather human and understanding on the one hand, yet prepared to do what was necessary on the other.

I tend to agree with you regarding the stories absence from Arrian GÇô but the thing that gives a touch of reality to it is the availability of Ada II at the time and the fact that she married Orontabates.



cheers!

nice to hear from you again

[dean]

Hello,

This whole "affair" is quite interesting.

I remember reading in one of my favorite books. the nature of Alexander- Renault asserts the possibility that Alexander, caringly, took his half brother half way around the world just to keep out of his mother's clutches.
(She finally got him anyway but...)

Maybe there is some truth in this- Alexander himself seems to have done his best or taken the decision to never return home.

But then again I also heard recently that maybe the rumour about Olympias having caused Arridaios' illness might have just been a bit of hype by Kassandros' team.

But who knows??????????

Best regards,
Dean

[marcus]

Going back to a post by Efstathios -

you said:

Also, there is no way that he would be along with the campaign and not weak minded,because there would be a report from someone about this.It isnt that easy to keep someone in a cell (a tent?) without the whole army knowing who he is.Especially if he was not weak minded.He would have tore the camp apart with his yells.

Alexander of Lyncestis was carted around with the army as a prisoner for over 3 years, yet between his arrest and his execution we hear not a word about him. Similarly, if Arrhidaeus didn't actually do anything while he was being "carted around", there's no reason why he should have been mentioned - the sources, after all, are about Alexander, with some mention of other men's deeds ... but no deeds, no mention. So I don't find the lack of mention of Arrhidaeus surprising. However, it doesn't stop me from wondering what his role/position was.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I remember reading in one of my favorite books. the nature of Alexander- Renault asserts the possibility that Alexander, caringly, took his half brother half way around the world just to keep out of his mother's clutches.

Ah, but that kind of approach to the mystery of Arrhidaeus is Renault at her best. Much as I love her book, she needs to be approached very carefully from a historiographical point of view. Mary found (or created) any excuse, reason, explanation GÇô call it what you will GÇô for AlexanderGÇÖs behavior, especially when she didnGÇÖt approve. One of my favorite lines is when she dismisses the death of Cleitus with a modern day parallel: GÇ£Such was the act of homicide invariably called by historians GÇÿthe murder of Cleitus.GÇÖ Today, with equivalent evidence of drink and provocation, it would receive a sentence of two or three years, with remission for good conduct.GÇ¥ Gotta love her!

What she says about Arrhidaeus is this: GÇ£He was a dangerous pawn, however, to leave on the Macedonian checkpoint. He must have been well-cared for; he was the longer lived of the two. . . . From time to time he (Alexander) must have looked in on his poor imbecile half-brother Arridaeus, who disappears from history till AlexanderGÇÖs death, when he is discovered close at hand in the royal palace.GÇ¥

Mary always took the most positive approach in order to reflect well on AlexanderGÇÖs character, but thereGÇÖs nothing in the above that is less of an extrapolation than the hypotheses presented in this thread. (And one of these days, when I have nothing better to do, IGÇÖm going to entertain myself by scanning through The Nature of Alexander and see how many times Renault says must have about something of which we have no real knowledge.)

I found one thing of great interest while looking for the above quotes, however. Page 60 (English hardcover) has this: GÇ£The eagerness with which the satrap jumped at his offer must have opened his eyes; Pixodarus had clearly been promised no heir-apparent. But enlightenment came too late. Philip found out. And here the Plutarch manuscript has a tantalizing short gap. After the break, it says Philip went to AlexanderGÇÖs room, taking with him Philotas . . . GÇ£

I checked the Loeb edition of PlutarchGÇÖs life GÇô no mention of a lacuna here. Did Mary really have access at some point to an actual Greek manuscript of Plutarch? And could there be something in that GÇ£tantalizing short gapGÇ¥ that would enlighten us about the whole Pixodarus affair? WeGÇÖve no way of knowing, but it might explain the contradictions and confusion therein.

Best regards,

[marcus]

Ooh, you detective, you!

I checked the Loeb edition of PlutarchGÇÖs life GÇô no mention of a lacuna here.

As far as I can see, and my very poor Greek tells me, there sure as heck ain't a lacuna there. Naughty, naughty Mary.

But I like your idea of checking out here "must have" comments - you're right, of course, about her methodology. It's always interesting that she is quoted in the bibliographies of pretty scholarly works - but, although she does have some very good stuff in Nature, it's also perfectly true to say that she has a definite Romantic motive ...

ATB

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros et al:

At this point it's quite a few posts back, and so I'm repeating some points that others have made, but...

No evidence that Philip told Alexander he meant him to be heir? He's paraphrased referring to it right in Plutarch's Pixodaros passage.

But Philip, as soon as
he was made acquainted with this transaction, went to his son's apartment... 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...

You wrote:

No, but did Alexander have good reason to kill the people you listed in your post, or were they merely good excuses?

That's material for many an argument, but extraneous to mine (which perhaps I didn't make clear enough). Anyone who was a real threat, there was either true evidence against, or Alexander felt the need to fabricate some, for public consumption. Either way -- which is why the degree of veracity is extraneous to my argument -- this wasn't the case with Arrhidaios. Why? Obvious conclusion: he wasn't a real threat.

You wrote:

ItGÇÖs awfully convenient that no one remained as a possible contender for the throne, with the exception of Arrhidaeus.

Exactly -- that's what I'm saying. Arrhidaios was exceptional.

Alexander's general pattern was to crush anyone who crossed him and generously reward anyone who supported him. Thus a competent Arrhidaios he'd have treated the same way: either had him killed and stated some true or false reason, if he'd shown rivalrous tendencies, or appointed him to military commands, if he'd been loyal, because that would strengthen his own support base. (And we'd know about them through Arrian.) The only reason he kept Alexander Lynkestes alive as long as he did was that AL had been first to proclaim him king. If he'd wavered between one of those two choices, his friends would have pushed him to decide -- as with Philotas (and indeed with AL). What we know of Alexander's treatment of Arrhidaios (he did not kill him, he did not accuse him or have him tried for anything, and he removed him from Makedonia) makes more sense as a way to treat someone who can become a rival only if controlled by others.

Carney estimates the marriage to ArrhidaeusGÇÖ mother as being between 358 and 357, so if Arrhidaeus was older than Alexander it wouldnGÇÖt have been by much. And as PhilipGÇÖs reign gives us the first real evidence of multiple polygamous marriages, itGÇÖs impossible to tell whether age would have been the major factor in the choice for a successor.

But since primogeniture was the tradition, it most likely was.

(Aside: I would love to know more about the campaign against the Illyrians where Cynanne fought alongside her father!)

Aside back at ya: Me too -- especially since I would have thought she was too young. Maybe, like Alexander, she was precocious

Karen, I really donGÇÖt know whether Philip would have encouraged his sons to support each other, and I canGÇÖt see that family patterns would or even could repeat themselves. In PhilipGÇÖs family there were three brothers with the same mother, while AlexanderGÇÖs family was like nothing we have ever known. The dynamics of polygamy, the culture, the politics, and the ambitions of both mothers and sons GÇô all these must have played a significant role in family relationships and IGÇÖm not sure that I could ever properly relate to them or fully understand them.

Well, I'm not basing this on what I relate to, but on well-established human psychology. People tend to raise their children as they themselves were raised, because that's what they know. Even if they purposely intend the precise opposite, a subconscious repetition will still, in most cases, prevail. This isn't to say that other factors won't interfere, as you're saying, and so perhaps this is a weak argument on my part. Philip certainly wasn't encouraging a friendly relationship between Alexander and his half-brother by Kleopatra (whether the child was real or projected).

However, the absence of any mention of Arrhidaios taking any actions or having any impact during the family brouhahas suggests that he wasn't an active player. If he'd been competent he'd have a base of friends from childhood, just as Alexander did. How about when Alexander was in exile; surely he'd have made a move, that we'd have heard about? Another point -- if Arrhidaios was intelligent, why wasn't he sent to Mieza to learn under Aristotle? Why would Philip give one son such a huge advantage in education over the other, if he saw them both as credible heirs?

The idea that Arrhidaios' brain was addled by imprisonment is a real stretch in my mind, especially using Alexander Lynkestes' silence as evidence. There are all sorts of reasons, from terror to resignation to genuine guilt, other than his brain being damaged, that could have kept AL from speaking.

But more crucially, his imprisonment was mentioned. If Arrhidaios, a higher-status and ultimately more important person, had been imprisoned, surely it would have been mentioned too.

My thoughts, anyway.

[karen]

I absolutely adore and am awestruck by her novels... but I have to admit, those "must haves" always bothered me, too. Even "likely" would have been better.

I have always felt that she wrote about Alexander as if she were in love with him. Of course when writing from the point of view of a character who is love with him (Bagoas), it works, wonderfully. But The Nature of Alexander is that way, too.

Not that I prefer historians who hate him. The emotion takes away from the validity of any speculations (and speculations are inevitable) in both cases...

[dean]

Hello,

I too love the books but in the end they are novels and she fills in all the blanks with very comfortable "must haves" like you say and invents even whole scenes that were never mentioned anywhere. She also tries to pass off for fact certain things that in the sources were never clearly so- see her treatment of Ptolemy and his possible. relationship to Alexander(half brother etc.etc) I suppose that it is her literay licence. I love the bit in "fire from heaven" when Alexander and Philip are fighting together,you know the bit where Philip is knocked unconscious and Alexander runs to his rescue. Renault makes it look like Philip cunningly feigned the whole thing- and simply pretended.

Her Alexander is that of a perfect English gentleman- when we know that this was never the case. However her novels are so darned well written that you can't help but love them.(with the exception of Funeral games)

Either way in general I think she is pretty much on the mark- some other writers have done a lot worse.

That is my fifty cents anyway,
Best regards,
Dean

[amyntoros]

but, although she does have some very good stuff in Nature, it's also perfectly true to say that she has a definite Romantic motive ...

And she is so expressive GÇô with a turn of phrase she easily manipulates the emotions, communicating a convincing image of HER Alexander. For the casual reader, itGÇÖs almost impossible not to be swayed, not to believe that she has captured history to perfection. It takes a line-by-line examination to fully appreciate her skill, to realize that she is conveying the truth as she sees it and not necessarily as it really was.

I omitted to comment in my previous post on the quote about Arrhidaeus GÇô that he was GÇ£discovered close at hand in the royal palace.GÇ¥ Renault makes it sound as if they didnGÇÖt know he was there GÇô that the Macedonian soldiers, wandering distraught through the palace after AlexanderGÇÖs death, discovered him hidden somewhere in the palace rooms! I find the idea somewhat reminiscent of GravesGÇÖ I Claudius in which the Praetorian Guard found him cowering behind a curtain in the palace.

But GÇô and hereGÇÖs the rub GÇô would Renault stoop to invent something to make a point, such as her claim of the lacuna in Plutarch? Reading the rest of the section I see no evidence of her using the GÇ£tantalizing short gapGÇ¥ to benefit a theory of her own. She simply mentions it in passing, leaving me to wonder again exactly what document she was working from. She did travel extensively, particularly in Greece, and may have had access to an original. However, that doesnGÇÖt explain why the Loeb edition is silent on this. IGÇÖm going to send an email to someone who might know more about this and will post later if I hear anything.

Best regards,

[marcus]

I've just re-checked the Loeb, and I've also checked the Penguin edition (trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert). In neither is there even the slightest hint of there being a lacuna in the Greek - and, as I said before, I don't see how there can be in the Greek text that's in the Loeb.

As far as I'm aware there aren't lots of different mss of Plutarch hanging around ... so it'll be interesting to see what your contact says.

ATB

[amyntoros]

Hi Karen,

IGÇÖm hoping that Pothosians arenGÇÖt getting too bored with this one topic as it would be remiss of me not to respond to your post.

No evidence that Philip told Alexander he meant him to be heir? He's paraphrased referring to it right in Plutarch's Pixodaros passage.

Yes, but surely this was because Alexander had proven himself - by this time it ought to have been obvious to everyone that Philip was viewing Alexander as his heir. However, there's no indication that the heir was selected at birth or when the children were younger. R. Malcomn Errington in his History of Macedonia points out that Archelaos was recognized for more than twenty years before his accession as the chosen successor of his father Perdikkas. At the approximate age of forty-five when he took the throne, he must have been in his twenties before it was confirmed that he was going to inherit. And if primogeniture was the tradition then Philip should have been acclaimed as regent only, allowing Amyntas to rule when he was old enough. That this didnGÇÖt happen, and that Philip chose not to eliminate Amyntas, suggests to me that the succession was based on the best Argead for the job (understandably an oldest son when a choice was available) rather than on any well-established tradition.

However, the absence of any mention of Arrhidaios taking any actions or having any impact during the family brouhahas suggests that he wasn't an active player. If he'd been competent he'd have a base of friends from childhood, just as Alexander did.

But how do we know that he didnGÇÖt? We know nothing about his childhood at all (or his adulthood before AlexanderGÇÖs death) just as we know nothing about the childhood of any other major characters in the histories.

How about when Alexander was in exile; surely he'd have made a move, that we'd have heard about?

With Philip still alive and kicking? What kind of move might he have made?

If Arrhidaios, a higher-status and ultimately more important person, had been imprisoned, surely it would have been mentioned too.

Based on your comments and the remarks of others in this thread, I surrender (gracefully, I hope) on the subject of ArrhidaiosGÇÖ imprisonment. It was never something of which I was firmly convinced GÇô I merely threw it out as a possible explanation of his absence from the histories at this point in time. I havenGÇÖt been persuaded, however, that he was incompetent. (Do I hear Pothosians groaning?) The armyGÇÖs response after the death of Alexander still causes me to question this. The other generals who wanted to strengthen their own position had every reason not to want additional factions to be formed. How difficult would it have been for them to tell the army that Arrididaios was weak-minded, and that in supporting him for the throne they were merely raising up Meleager as a potential puppet-master?

All the best,

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros et al:

IGÇÖm hoping that Pothosians arenGÇÖt getting too bored with this one topic as it would be remiss of me not to respond to your post.

Well, sooner or later we'll get bored with it (I think I'm just about mined out already) and then it will sink. One thing I like about this forum format, though -- "hot" topics stay high on the list.

No evidence that Philip told Alexander he meant him to be heir? He's paraphrased referring to it right in Plutarch's Pixodaros passage.

Yes, but surely this was because Alexander had proven himself - by this time it ought to have been obvious to everyone that Philip was viewing Alexander as his heir.

I was just rebutting your statement that we have no evidence that Philip told Alexander he was heir.

Of course, if it was obvious to everyone... why would Alexander think of Arrhidaios as a threat? (Just to bring things full circle )

However, there's no indication that the heir was selected at birth or when the children were younger... the succession was based on the best Argead for the job (understandably an oldest son when a choice was available) rather than on any well-established tradition.

When I think about it, from what I know and from what you've written here, I suspect it was neither the oldest or the best (how would that be judged, and by whom?) -- but the one whom the father chose, ratified by the Makedones. And he would tend to choose (and the Makedones would tend to ratify) the oldest, or else a younger who clearly outshone the oldest (though I wonder, do we have any other case of that happening?)

But how do we know that he didnGÇÖt? We know nothing about his childhood at all (or his adulthood before AlexanderGÇÖs death) just as we know nothing about the childhood of any other major characters in the histories.

But he was as royal as Alexander, so his actions would have commanded attention, especially if they affected Alexander. What sort of move might he have made? I can tell by that devil icon that you're thinking something wicked ...and, hey, knocking off Philip without getting caught while Alexander was out of the country might have been a way to seize the throne. How about knocking off Alexander? But I was actually thinking smaller-scale than that, like inveigling Dad into giving him a trusted position, or making more connections with the powerful families, or somehow distinguishing himself on the field, or working hard on gaining a larger power-base of friends, or all of the above, such that Alexander would have had a harder time being acclaimed after Philip's assassination.

I surrender (gracefully, I hope) on the subject of ArrhidaiosGÇÖ imprisonment. It was never something of which I was firmly convinced GÇô I merely threw it out as a possible explanation of his absence from the histories at this point in time. I havenGÇÖt been persuaded, however, that he was incompetent. (Do I hear Pothosians groaning?)

And after you surrendered so gracefully!

Just kidding, I for one am not groaning. I just think it's a matter of examining the evidence. Without another explanation (such as imprisonment) his absence from the histories is evidence for his incompetence, when combined with the other evidence. Where else does the evidence comes from? Multiple ancient sources say it, yes? (I'm not very up on the post-Alexander history, because I find it too depressing.) I need to read that Carney article again.

The armyGÇÖs response after the death of Alexander still causes me to question this. The other generals who wanted to strengthen their own position had every reason not to want additional factions to be formed. How difficult would it have been for them to tell the army that Arrididaios was weak-minded, and that in supporting him for the throne they were merely raising up Meleager as a potential puppet-master?

It does make you wonder, but I think the reason would have been the religious reverence the army held for the Argeads, in their perception that the royal blood was divine and divinely-favoured. They'd embrace anyone of that blood, and deny to themselves his weak-mindedness, or else tell themselves the Gods would cure him, or at least lead him right despite his simplicity, given they (the Gods) so favoured the Argeads (as both Philip's and Alexander's fortunes clearly illustrated, to people of that belief system).

There's also the emotional factor, and it was a very emotional time. The army had lost Alexander unexpectedly, to their horror and grief, and Arrhidaios was the only adult male Argead left, the only person with something of Philip and Alexander in him, and so they [s]must have[/s] LIKELY looked to him in desperation. It wouldn't be the first or last irrational collective decision in history, and with the religious factor, some might have seen it as rational.

My thought, anyway.

(Should we talk about Kynnane fighting alongside Philip now? )

With warmth,
Karen

[amyntoros]

Should we talk about Kynnane fighting alongside Philip now?

I wish . . . Unfortunately, thereGÇÖs so little to discuss. As far as I know, the only evidence is in Polyaenus 8.60. Might as well append the link here (to SusanGÇÖs site) GÇô canGÇÖt imagine thereGÇÖd be enough comments to warrant a new thread. But if there should be, Marcus can always split it off. (Yes, I could too, but he does it so well!)

Polyaenus

With best regards,

[marcus]

But if there should be, Marcus can always split it off. (Yes, I could too, but he does it so well!)

Oh, you know how to flatter a chap, don't you!

ATB

[Paralus]

G'day Amytoros and all.

I've stayed out of this debate and lurked as it meandered over all sorts of "side bars". My primary reason is that I believe the story (which I think is only reported by Plutarch) to be unhistorical. I think Plutarch is repeating something that had possibly done the rounds so to speak but had not ever been substantiated.

Try as I might I can't really fathom a motive for Philip's countenance of the marriage. Philip was the most calculating of statesmen and would play Britain's Tony Blair off a break. Nothing was done without the good eye cocked to the benefit GÇô rarely an immediate benefit at that GÇô that would accrue.

What were those benefits? An alliance with an underling beholden to the "Great King" that could be used once the invasion was underway? Not likely. Such a move requires surprise. The sort of surprise that would GÇô for example GÇô see Mazaeus desert Darius at Gaugamela. A surprise that is well timed and achieves great success. The way the story is retailed, most everyone seemed to know what was going on, both in Greece and Asia. No surprise there and hence no real discernable strategic benefit.

Hammond has a much better discourse on the episode in his "Philip of Macedon" if memory serves. On the weekend I shall dig it out of my library and have a squizz.

More interesting is question of Arrhidaeus and the nature of his "accommodations" whilst in Asia. My view tends to that of a "benign" imprisonment. He was GÇô if the stories are correct GÇô impaired and no immediate threat. His fate, though under different circumstances, indicates that he possessed dynastic value and in strong amounts. Certainly enough for Meleager and the infantry to use against the avaricious and ambitious Perdiccas.

Alexander of Lyncestas I've no doubt was under virtual "tent arrest" until such time as conditions proved favourable for his eradication. I believe that Alexander's view was that of "keep you enemy (rival) close".

Arrhidaeus too will have felt the cold steel of Alexander's paranoia at some stage methinks.