why did philip turn on Alexander at his wedding?

[jasonxx]

Just that Question?

Kenny

[ruthaki]

Actually wasn't it the other way around? Alexander attacked his father for marrying the young woman and putting aside his own mother. Then the fracas began which I believe ended up in a brawl and later Alexander and his mother retreated to Dodoni for some time.

[jasonxx]

The Story goes that Attalus insulted Alexanders parentage and insinuated he was a Bastard.

Kinda gets to one I imagine.

Kenny

[ruthaki]

And then the fracas began with Alexander exhanging insults with his father. Philip lunging at him and falling down. Alexander ridiculing him by saying something like "....conquoror...who can't get from one place to another without falling..." (sorry, don't have the exact supposed quote on hand. But that's the gist of it.
At any rate, it was an exchange of insults between father and son beginning with Attalus' comments.

[jasonxx]

What Im aware is indeed it started with Attalus remarks, But it was pretty clear Philip insisted Alexander apologised and not Attalus. In reality to save the hastle he should have insisted both to apologise or knock there heads together.

Every which way I would support my son. He is blood and above any friend or political alliance I may have and would be forgiven and given a second chance in most things. Apart from Paedophilia rape and premeditated evil murder. Some killing have factors that differ from premeditation. I cant really accept Philip turning against Alexander and if he did there must have been more sinister and serious reasons?

Kenny

[Callisto]

What strikes me in this story is that Philip supposedly wasnt a full-blooded Argead either. His mother Eurydika was considered to be from the majority of historians as partly Illyrian (the origins of her father Sirras is a hot issue even today) and Attalus' derogatory shot about 'legitimate king' would normally apply as an insult also to Philip. Logically Alexander could defend himself on the ground his father wasnt a pure Macedon yet he didnt. Perhaps the supposed part-Illyrian ancestry of Eurydika isnt as clear as some historians believe it to be.

[jasonxx]

Was Alexander emerging as some kind of threat to Alexander. Was Alexander achieving things.

I remember in the Richard Burton Movie. Following Cheronea. Pausanius saluted Alexander and said. "Hail Alexander hero of Cheronae" I wonder was Alexanders star starting to shine. Was Philip seeing Alexander gaining with fame etc and maybe got a bit pissed and wanted to knock him down. Only a thought.

Kenny

[jan]

Well, since this is another one of those stories about Alexander which could or could not be true, which extant source is most responsible for this becoming so important to film makers?

I am wondering if one is writing this as a piece of fiction, who tells this story anyway? How did the historians make it a piece of history, since essentially, it is just a piece of gossip. What historical relevance does it have?

True historians would probably have excluded it from their history books as all it is a party at which father/son have an argument, and son stalks out.

If it is begun with well, Curtius says, or Plutarch says, or Arrian says, then we have a reason to consider where that source obtained it. But if in a piece of fiction, we hear that Olympias complained to her son that Philip was insulting her openly at a party, we have to wonder at who tells that story.

The important point has always been that in Stone's movie he is trying to gain sympathy for Alexander by having Colin Farrell appear with a wounded look on his face as if the rug has been taken right out from under him, so we feel sorry for him. In Ruthaki's explanation, it sounds as though Alexander is insulting his father, and his father, in a drunken rage, cannot control himself enough to keep himself from impaling his own son if he could, and so it escalates. Alexander scornfully looks at his father, and wonders at how a man so unable to even walk across a room expects to rule and conquer Asia. It is a juicy story. Wonder if there is any truth in it?

[marcus]

Well, since this is another one of those stories about Alexander which could or could not be true, which extant source is most responsible for this becoming so important to film makers?

I am wondering if one is writing this as a piece of fiction, who tells this story anyway? How did the historians make it a piece of history, since essentially, it is just a piece of gossip. What historical relevance does it have?

True historians would probably have excluded it from their history books as all it is a party at which father/son have an argument, and son stalks out.

If it is begun with well, Curtius says, or Plutarch says, or Arrian says, then we have a reason to consider where that source obtained it. But if in a piece of fiction, we hear that Olympias complained to her son that Philip was insulting her openly at a party, we have to wonder at who tells that story.

The important point has always been that in Stone's movie he is trying to gain sympathy for Alexander by having Colin Farrell appear with a wounded look on his face as if the rug has been taken right out from under him, so we feel sorry for him. In Ruthaki's explanation, it sounds as though Alexander is insulting his father, and his father, in a drunken rage, cannot control himself enough to keep himself from impaling his own son if he could, and so it escalates. Alexander scornfully looks at his father, and wonders at how a man so unable to even walk across a room expects to rule and conquer Asia. It is a juicy story. Wonder if there is any truth in it?

I'm not sure what all this has to do with the film, Jan?

As for whether the story is one that "could or could not be true", I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it. That doesn't mean it *is* true, of course, but it is entirely believable and there's no particular hint of the incredible to suggest otherwise.

ATB

[jan]

that Alexander was careful about who wrote his stories for history, so probably he approved this one... Jan

[marcus]

that Alexander was careful about who wrote his stories for history, so probably he approved this one... Jan

It depends on when you are talking about. Callisthenes was, of course, the official historian of the expedition, but he was writing about the expedition - there's nothing to indicate that he was engaged to write anything about the pre-334 period. To my knowledge, without checking laboriously, Nearchus is the only other one who is mentioned as having written up anything before Alexander died ... all the other histories about which we have any knowledge appear to have been written after 323.

Yes, we know that Alexander was specific about which painters and sculptors could draw and sculpt him; but Callisthenes was the only authorised author, for the campaign only, and all other writers appear to have done their work without 'permission'.

AT B

[dean]

Hello,
This is for me one of the most interesting moments in the whole of the Alexander story.
I mean here we have Philip- king of the hill, and his up and coming son together to "celebrate" another of his father's marriages. Olympias the scorned woman. Yet I don't suppose that she gave a damn that Philip was going to marry another woman- merely that she was cease to be the number one and so therefore obviously putting Alexander's accession seriously in danger.
That this incident came to a head at all I think underlies Alexander distrust in his father that must have been there a good long while.

That Attalus insinuated that he was a bastard was I think merely the catalyst that gave Alexander an opportunity to set his world to right. If Philip hadn't been so drunk it is scary to think what he might have done with his rebellious son.

Best regards,
Dean.

[jasonxx]

One thing the incident shows rather more common, Is the erruptions of serious arguments during a piss up. sometimes leading to fatalities.

We all know through drinking things get said which normally wouldnt. Even though what is said is close to the heart. The situation is exact to Alexander Skewering Clietus. It was a terrible thing. It could be called an Atrocity if it were premeditaed but I very much doubt, we must cut Alexander some slack with that incident.

kenny