Justin's book

[maciek]

Hi!
Some time ago it was a disscussion in here about Callisthenes's death. I said to Marcus then in Justin's book it was written that he was killed because he refuses (with arogance) of proskinesis. That's all in this source. Now I got back to this book as I had bought it and I read another parts of it so I have to correct myself. Justin writs much more when he is writing about Lisymachos during Diadoch's wars. Justin writes that Alexander was furious and cutted Callisthenes's ears, nose, toungh, and putted him into cage to die. After this Lisymachos gave him a poison because he was pitty of his pain. Alexander punnished Lisymachos for it.
Of corse Justin is even more against Alex then Curtius so You can't give much credit to his version but still we can find some very interesting elements (not to be found in other sources) in his story.Maciek

[ruthaki]

That's certainly a harsher version than any I've ever heard of. I understoodfrom one version I've read, that Kallisthenes died in prison of illness before they actually executed him. Aren't there several version of this?

[marcus]

I haven't yet managed to get hold of a copy of Justin, but I did read a resume of what he said about Callisthenes somewhere (Lane Fox perhaps?).It does seem extremely harsh and, personally, I doubt that Alexander was quite so vindictive. The method of despatching Callisthenes, a Greek, is unlikely to have been as harsh as that used on Bessus, a barbarian put to death in the barbarian manner.However, I still find it very interesting that there are conflicting reports on Callisthenes' death even from Ptolemy and Aristoboulos: they didn't have any particular reason for telling different stories unless, perhaps, what Alexander did to Callisthenes was particularly harsh... so perhaps there is something in it?All the bestMarcus

[maciek]

I think that even Callisthenes's killing was enough to them to have a opinion of harsh treatening - they thought about Callisthenes that he was only a writter and (some how philosopher) so "why he had to die". He was also a teacher for the young ones - maybe that's why opinions was so different. But they all didn't understand what was Alexander's point or understood it but totally didn't agree. Callisthenes broke out Alex's politic of easy introducing the proskinesis into macedonian and greek customs. It was even worse - because Callisthenes made some notes in diary about Alexander as the good but some time befor in south anatolia. So Alex could assume that Callisthenes will help with introducing of proskinesis - but he apired most opposite to it. Maybe it realy was some rebelion prepared and that's why he was so "brave" - beliving that macedonians will protect him - as we all know he was mistaken and reall beadly.Maciek

[marcus]

Possibly. However, are we sure that the Macedonian officers cared? After all, after Callisthenes rather foolishly demonstrated his oratorical skills by highlighting the worst things about the Macedonians, they turned against him. He was already somewhat unpopular because of his prudish attitudes.So, they might have been pleased to see him off the scene, because he had shown himself to be an anti-Macedonian who wasn't any fun at parties... :-)All the bestMarcus

[maciek]

Yes Marcus but look - he was against Alexander, first - next when Alexander made his little cath and pushed him into this orations then all macedonians was against him -though they never liked philosophers and artists. Some time before all this Aristotele said that Callisthenes will have a problem if he will maintain his position and arogancy to Alexander. Aristotele knew him very good - all this shows that he was much to proud and blind to any threads. I think that he maybe had some idea that macedonians will be on his side but didn't imagine that after such orations they will turn against him. He was (apart from all his knowledge just full in life matters. So what I'm trying to say is that macedonians didn't want him also but it was one of main point for Alex's opponents and they for sure would use it - maybe that's why versions of this story are so diferent.Maciek

[ruthaki]

I understood that Kallisthenes was arrested and executed for treason because he had encouraged the young pages to conspire against Alexander. If that was so, then execution was the punishment for treason (and their laws said they could kill all the other family members too).

[maciek]

There are some evidences that it was only pozorated treason to kill Kallisthenes. You see that Kallisthenes wasn't judged those same day and never after. I think Kallisthenes (if wasn't so smart) he could say something to encourage the treators. But anyway I think that main reason was that Kallisthenes brok all Alex's plans with introducing the proskinesis (what was real importand for Alex in his ideas for the future).Maciek

[marcus]

I have to agree with Maciek, here. The pages' conspiracy was a convenient excuse to arraign Callisthenes, but there is no proof that he had anything to do with it - and the pages never accused him, even under torture. After scuppering Alex's plans for proskynesis one could argue that Callisthenes' days were numbered, but Alexander still needed an excuse to get rid of him. The chronology is a bit confusing, but I would place Callisthenes' damning of the Macedonians after the proskynesis affair - by opposing proskynsesis he gained more support from the MAcedonians, so Alexander found convenient ways of undermining him in their eyes again. Then, when the pages conspired (whether or not Call had anything to do with it), the opportunity was too good to miss.As an aside, I recall reading a very good article (can't remember who by, I'm afraid) that argued that there is actually no proof that the 'law' permitted the execution of traitors' families: not least because, actually, it didn't happen very often (Alexander of Lynkestis still alive after his brothers killed; Hegelochos, a kinsman of Attalos and Kleopatra, left alive until he died at Gaugamela; Koinos remained alive even though he was related to Parmenion and Philotas...).All the bestMarcus

[Tre]

Hello Marcus:If I am not mistaken at least one of the sources claims that it was Alexander who ended the Macedonian practice of killing males related to the offending party. However, during the time of the succession Alexander most certainly applied the law to enemies of his father and himself with the exception of Antipater's son-in-law. In fact it was not politically feasible or wise to make the change at that time. Since the Argeads practiced this form of justice within their own clan, I find it quite plausible that this was standard 'justice' among Macedonians up until Alexander. One did not leave 'loose ends'and risk blood feuds with disgruntled males of a clan. Regards,TreNow Callisthenes, that's another story entirely

[maciek]

Hi Tre and MarcusI think it was King's decision to use or not this law. If the ruler wanted to be "mercifull" he could resign using it. Alexander practised it only at the beginning of his Kingship because he knew macedonian history - it was no other option. As for Atallos he had even more reasons to kill him. Later after the succesion it was no point using this law and Alexander always wanted to be loved by his people so best way to be a good king (as Aristotele tought him) was to show merci to his men.Maciek

[ruthaki]

And then there was Olympias who went ahead and had at least 100 of Antipater's clan killed to retaliate for Alexander's death and her own quest for vengeance.

[marcus]

Although, Ruth, I would say that Olympias' 'revenge' was a totally different kettle of fish. For a start, there is no proof that Antipater and/or his family had anything to do with Alexander's death, which means that there is no evidence that he was guilty of treason. Olympias had never got on with Antipater, and they didn't exactly see eye to eye over the succession, which would have been her reasons for the murders.Also, of course, Olympias just had them murdered, rather than go through the proper legal procedure (if there was one as such). Just as she murdered Kleopatra and the child in 335BC with no cause or legal justification. All the bestMarcus

[alejandro]

HelloMaybe it was part of the fiction in the book, but I remember a passage in Renault's Fire from Heaven where Hephaistion (sorry, I never know how to spell it!) said to Alexander that his family (Hephaistion's) and Leonnatus' had a blood feud, and that Philip intervened to avoid more problems by, amongst other things, taking both of them as Alexander's pages/squires.
So if this is true, it is Philip who started the "fashion".
In any case, I think that the actual practice of this "tradition" depends on what is on stake. Probably it was a question of honour for every male in Macedon to punish anyone who hurt himself or his family, but certainly if you are king you have to consider other facts. You have to be pragmatic. You have to play Realpolitik till the end. That could be the reason for some "strange" survivals. At the same time, these blood feuds could also be part of Realpolitik themselves: just after Alexander became king he killed not only Attalus (who offended himself and his mother by calling him, indirectly, bastard), but also all those clansmen of him important enough to trouble his reign. Also, he did the same with Parmenion: of course, it could be said that he did it in "self-defense" given that Parmenion would invoke his blood call and would try to kill him, but we can also think that getting rid of Parmenion was too convenient for Alexander (I don't remember where I read about a silent but consistent plan to eliminate the old guard by Alexander: he certainly decimated the Linkestids and the Attalids, then Philotas and Parmenion, then Cleitus, and was calling Antipater when he died in Babylon. Not a bad hypothesis, though as always we cannot be sure about it either).
Kind regardsMiguel

[marcus]

Hi Miguel,The "silent but consistent" plan theory is expounded by Badian in "Alexander the Great and the Loneliness of Power".It made a lot of sense at the time, but I have also read a very good article (by Bosworth, I think) that fairly comprehensively rubbished it - as far as I could see it all hinged on the fact that it only worked if Philotas *didn't* report the Dimnus conspiracy - which Alexander, of course, couldn't influence.All the bestMarcus