A new topic related to the possible slurs on Alexander by his father.
Apart from the debatable topics of Philip demeaning Alexander with his singing etc and maybe others. There can be no worse a situation where Philip humiliated his son than at his wedding. At most Philip could have mediated and ordered Attalus to apologise as well for calling Alexander a bastard. Yet Philip whole heartedly came down on Attalus side and really what must have felt like a knife through Alexanders heart.
Now politically or tactically or even to character build Alexander that must have cut very deep. To be shunned by your own father who I would assume Alexander tried to love and respect inspite of his mother. I doubt Alexander forgave that and would say from that moment he thought fuck you. Any kind of father son bond probably was smashed. And maybe a reason I feel Alexander lost no sleep when Philip died nor can be taken out of the frame for involvement.
Ive mentioned Reckognition and out doing the gods. But in reall terms the only person worth out doing was Philip and it was Philips shadow he would have to get out of and indeed he did. Many scholars argue that Alexander would have been nothing without Philip and I guess we could agree with that. If Philip had lived then maybe there would have been no glory for Alexander to have. So its easy to believe that Philip but a large chip on Alexanders shoulder and really kept going to push Philips legend and further back.
maybe Philip had a far reaching effect on Alexander than some would give credit.
Kenny
In Spite of Philip
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
smittysmitty
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
- Location: Australia
Yes
Of course he was -- or at least, that he was the equal of the Gods, equal enough to be portrayed along with them and his image placed among them -- in fact doesn't one of the sources say he had it placed in the centre, as if he were the most important God?Was he suggesting he was a thirteenth god?
I actually think Philip was an atheist towards the end of his life. The Gods were no more than publicity aids to him, in his mind. In a culture where tales of mortals being punished for hubris abound, what else could explain this? (Though he may have had second thoughts as he lay stabbed and dying...)
What gets me is that Alexander gets derided for having a "God complex" even though he never did anything quite like this -- and Philip doesn't. The price of greater prominence, I guess.
All the best,
Karen
I’m not sure if or where it is said that Philip’s statue was placed in the center, but you may well be correct.karen wrote:Of course he was -- or at least, that he was the equal of the Gods, equal enough to be portrayed along with them and his image placed among them -- in fact doesn't one of the sources say he had it placed in the centre, as if he were the most important God?Was he suggesting he was a thirteenth god?
But if Philip really believed that he could/would become a god, would he have thought that he was being hubristic? Yes, he was the consummate politician and he had an obvious desire to awe and impress the visiting guests from all around Greece, but does it necessarily follow that he didn’t believe it himself? Diodorus (16.91.2) tells how Philip requested an oracle from Delphi after sending an advance party into Asia. In fact, Diodorus (16.91.4) also says that, despite the oracle’s ambiguity, Philip “thought that the gods supported him and was very happy to think that Asia would be made captive under the hands of the Macedonians." This was late in his life and isn’t indicative of atheism, IMO. It could be that Philip was just arrogant or self-confident enough to believe that his actions with the statue were not hubris. After all, he had already placed statues of himself, his mother, Olympias and Alexander at Olympia!karen wrote:I actually think Philip was an atheist towards the end of his life. The Gods were no more than publicity aids to him, in his mind. In a culture where tales of mortals being punished for hubris abound, what else could explain this? (Though he may have had second thoughts as he lay stabbed and dying...)
I’ve always thought that this was an interesting issue, rarely raised as Kenny has done here. Was Alexander’s apparent desire to become a god based solely on his deep and evident religious belief, or was this also another instance of him needing to outdo his father? Good question.What gets me is that Alexander gets derided for having a "God complex" even though he never did anything quite like this -- and Philip doesn't. The price of greater prominence, I guess.
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
-
jasonxx
Amyntros Hail
In reality. Philip was the only real yard stick he could measure. But in human terms not really. The Persian kings ahd far out done any Macedonian or Greek king. I would say having studies Persia and the great kings in real terms it was the Persian kings that had to be out done. But I still feel Alexander resented his father particulaly in the end and would like to leave Philips achievements far behind..
Maybe with Alexander total disregard for Parmenio. Parmenio was as close as Alexander could get to telling Philip to go get fucked. Excuse the wording.
Would Alexander have swapped his fame and glory for a close love with his father? Its fare to say Philip did put a hiuge chip on Alexanders shoulder.
Kenny
In reality. Philip was the only real yard stick he could measure. But in human terms not really. The Persian kings ahd far out done any Macedonian or Greek king. I would say having studies Persia and the great kings in real terms it was the Persian kings that had to be out done. But I still feel Alexander resented his father particulaly in the end and would like to leave Philips achievements far behind..
Maybe with Alexander total disregard for Parmenio. Parmenio was as close as Alexander could get to telling Philip to go get fucked. Excuse the wording.
Would Alexander have swapped his fame and glory for a close love with his father? Its fare to say Philip did put a hiuge chip on Alexanders shoulder.
Kenny
-
ruthaki
- Strategos (general)
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada
Philip vs Alexander
Out of definace for a father who often put him down, and encouraged by his powerful mother to be a high achiever, Alexander basically said "I'll show you, Dad!" And he did!
And if he had a so-called 'god-complex' it was likely due to being brought up by a mother who probably drilled it into his head that he was god-begotten.
I don't think he meant to set himself up equal to the gods because he alwasy showed great reverence toward them.
And if he had a so-called 'god-complex' it was likely due to being brought up by a mother who probably drilled it into his head that he was god-begotten.
I don't think he meant to set himself up equal to the gods because he alwasy showed great reverence toward them.
Gods
Greetings,
Interesting comments regarding Philip and the gods. An additional thought:
If I recall (and I may well be remembering incorrectly), there is evidence to suggest that it would not be hubristic for Philip to claim his place among the gods because there was already a folk tradition in Makedon of the king as god or god-like, quite aside from claiming descent from the gods. So it would make perfect sense for Philip, who had proven himself a cunning, politically astute successful king, to show himself among the gods.
Now, I do not think that Philip or Alexander or anyone else perceived of themselves as having god-like powers. There was a different 'mindset" about gods and goddesses- they were fallible and all too prone to human flaws and emotions. We have to remember to think about the concepts and beleifs about gods *outside* modern views.
What might appear hubristic to modern people might not have appeared so to Makedonians. The *hubris* came in not giving the gods their due while claiming that due for oneself and elevating oneself *above* the gods and their due. Inn most instances, Alexander (as well as Philip, Olympiada et al) was mindful of the dues owed the gods.
Regards,
Sikander
Interesting comments regarding Philip and the gods. An additional thought:
If I recall (and I may well be remembering incorrectly), there is evidence to suggest that it would not be hubristic for Philip to claim his place among the gods because there was already a folk tradition in Makedon of the king as god or god-like, quite aside from claiming descent from the gods. So it would make perfect sense for Philip, who had proven himself a cunning, politically astute successful king, to show himself among the gods.
Now, I do not think that Philip or Alexander or anyone else perceived of themselves as having god-like powers. There was a different 'mindset" about gods and goddesses- they were fallible and all too prone to human flaws and emotions. We have to remember to think about the concepts and beleifs about gods *outside* modern views.
What might appear hubristic to modern people might not have appeared so to Makedonians. The *hubris* came in not giving the gods their due while claiming that due for oneself and elevating oneself *above* the gods and their due. Inn most instances, Alexander (as well as Philip, Olympiada et al) was mindful of the dues owed the gods.
Regards,
Sikander
Philip the "master politician". Not quite right I suspect. He was a king after all. Manipulator and manager of the thoughts of men not his equal - for which read most "Greeks", particularly prattling, prevaricating Athenians - most definitely.
Did he believe himself a god? Most likely not I'd think: one too many arrow taken eyes or spear debilitated legs to delude himself with that fantasy. Delude or con others? Absolutely: it is what he spent a career as king doing.
The Philip T Barnum of Macedonia was our Philip. The master showman. Image was all and - when necessary - backed by a prodigious phalangite punch; followed of course by the near obligatory female dalliance, conspicuously consumated into diplomatic marriage.
Unless, of course, Demosthenes was involved.
No, the statue was - and the scene it which it was set - MTV for the day. It played well. Like the wedding (at which he was assassinated) it was the Pella version of Fox News. If the pious belived it, so much the better.
Did he believe himself a god? Most likely not I'd think: one too many arrow taken eyes or spear debilitated legs to delude himself with that fantasy. Delude or con others? Absolutely: it is what he spent a career as king doing.
The Philip T Barnum of Macedonia was our Philip. The master showman. Image was all and - when necessary - backed by a prodigious phalangite punch; followed of course by the near obligatory female dalliance, conspicuously consumated into diplomatic marriage.
Unless, of course, Demosthenes was involved.
No, the statue was - and the scene it which it was set - MTV for the day. It played well. Like the wedding (at which he was assassinated) it was the Pella version of Fox News. If the pious belived it, so much the better.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
I admit the spin doctoring, but there's a difference between believing one was already a god, and believing one had earned the right (due to great achievements) to sit amongst the gods once one was dead. Alexander believed it or he wouldn't have gone to the effort to have Hephaistion declared a god. They didn't go for it at Siwah, obviously, but having him declared a Hero was good enough. I think the same could have applied to Philip, all self-promotion to the Greeks aside. There's evidence enough that he shared in the religious beliefs of the age.Paralus wrote:Did he believe himself a god? Most likely not I'd think: one too many arrow taken eyes or spear debilitated legs to delude himself with that fantasy. Delude or con others? Absolutely: it is what he spent a career as king doing.
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Philip and Godhead
Greetings,
Thinking out loud, here:
Amyntoros said: "I admit the spin doctoring, but there's a difference between believing one was already a god, and believing one had earned the right (due to great achievements) to sit amongst the gods once one was dead. Alexander believed it or he wouldn't have gone to the effort to have Hephaistion declared a god. They didn't go for it at Siwah, obviously, but having him declared a Hero was good enough. I think the same could have applied to Philip, all self-promotion to the Greeks aside. There's evidence enough that he shared in the religious beliefs of the age. "
In a sense I agree with both views: that Philip was a master of spin and that he claimed the right to be among the gods. But I also have to say that we *must* take a different mind-set into account when examining the deeds of men and women from the past. They had a different culture and different perception; and while human motives remain relatively similar, they are implemented and activated by different circumstances, based on culture and belief systems. It was important a man not fall into false modesty, he had to be able to state his accomplishments; Philip was probably more than aware that his accomplishments were "greater" than those who preceded him and "greater" than what his peers could or had accomplished.
Philip was putting on a grand show with the statue incident- but he had a folk tradition in the culture already that allowed the action. He had the right to try to lay claim to a place among the gods. Indeed, since the incident is not well-covered, we cannot know if Philip had not been granted the right to do. Alexander, as King, intended to claim this same right... but I would use caution applying "trying to outdo his father" as a primary motive. His father, though a factor, was not Alexander's competition; Alexander knew at some point he was surpassing his father's deeds. But he needed everyone *else* to know it, to acknowledge his achievements, to see him as worthy of a place among the gods (and again, we must not try to define the gods as they are often defined today).
Alexander failed to obtain God-head for Hephaistion but obtained the title of Hero, guaranteeing him a place among the gods and was determined to ensue immortality for both Hephaistion and himself (It does not matter if the priests knew which way the stones *better* fall when petitioned). Hephaistion, as Hero, had a claim to a place amongst the gods. But Alexander meant to obtain the greater title.
Regards,
Sikander
Thinking out loud, here:
Amyntoros said: "I admit the spin doctoring, but there's a difference between believing one was already a god, and believing one had earned the right (due to great achievements) to sit amongst the gods once one was dead. Alexander believed it or he wouldn't have gone to the effort to have Hephaistion declared a god. They didn't go for it at Siwah, obviously, but having him declared a Hero was good enough. I think the same could have applied to Philip, all self-promotion to the Greeks aside. There's evidence enough that he shared in the religious beliefs of the age. "
In a sense I agree with both views: that Philip was a master of spin and that he claimed the right to be among the gods. But I also have to say that we *must* take a different mind-set into account when examining the deeds of men and women from the past. They had a different culture and different perception; and while human motives remain relatively similar, they are implemented and activated by different circumstances, based on culture and belief systems. It was important a man not fall into false modesty, he had to be able to state his accomplishments; Philip was probably more than aware that his accomplishments were "greater" than those who preceded him and "greater" than what his peers could or had accomplished.
Philip was putting on a grand show with the statue incident- but he had a folk tradition in the culture already that allowed the action. He had the right to try to lay claim to a place among the gods. Indeed, since the incident is not well-covered, we cannot know if Philip had not been granted the right to do. Alexander, as King, intended to claim this same right... but I would use caution applying "trying to outdo his father" as a primary motive. His father, though a factor, was not Alexander's competition; Alexander knew at some point he was surpassing his father's deeds. But he needed everyone *else* to know it, to acknowledge his achievements, to see him as worthy of a place among the gods (and again, we must not try to define the gods as they are often defined today).
Alexander failed to obtain God-head for Hephaistion but obtained the title of Hero, guaranteeing him a place among the gods and was determined to ensue immortality for both Hephaistion and himself (It does not matter if the priests knew which way the stones *better* fall when petitioned). Hephaistion, as Hero, had a claim to a place amongst the gods. But Alexander meant to obtain the greater title.
Regards,
Sikander
-
jasonxx
Well, he wandered the entire world for the fun of it!
Got to go....got to meet Efstathios. What is it with bloody Greeks and Persian numbers??!!
Got to go....got to meet Efstathios. What is it with bloody Greeks and Persian numbers??!!
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
