Justin's comparison of Philip and Alexander

[athenas owl]

I don't necessarily think that "too fond of wine" is a statement that isolates him from his own culture - more that his (and Philip's) drinking was considered inappropriate for a king, IMO. To the rest of the Greek world, this seemed like a barbaric practice. Sources indicate that all the Macedonians drank heavily at their feasts, drank unwatered wine, etc. However, the historians were rarely concerned with all Macedonians, but with Alexander, so the focus is on him. Same thing happens on this forum. I also don't think that those Pothosians on the other side of the argument necessarily see him as "drunk Alexander." Seems to me that they (I) think it rather futile to deny that he drank, sometimes to excess. His father did, Alexander did, the rest of the army did. When they partied, they partied hard. Look at the celebration after the passage through Gedrosia and the later competition for who could drink the most. Some people died as a result of this!

Interesting how of all the statements Justin made, this is the one that gets the fur flying.

Best regards,

True, it is HIS story that concerns people, but sometimes, like in the case of O'Brien and those like him, it seems to me that by focusing on ATG they lose sight of the entire culture ATG was in, central to it certainly, but still a product and participant of that society. It would be more startling to hear that he didn't drink. that would have set him apart as somehow less than a man to them I think than any sexual relationship. I come across the "he drank himself to death" meme enough to get irritated by it.

I still stand by my view that a lot of the apologising by Arrian (Aristobulus?) and others is that some of the "histories" were focusing on ATG's drinking (out of it's Macedonian context) in a way that reflected their own more fussy ways or were basing their views on something like the Royal Diaries which are about as reliable as the memo saying Saddam bought Niger yellow cake, if you know what I mean. Just as well the "pamphlet" that names the 20 guests, etc at ATG's final party. There's some poltical finger-pointing there as well.

[Paralus]

I still stand by my view that a lot of the apologising by Arrian (Aristobulus?) and others is that some of the "histories" were focusing on ATG's drinking (out of it's Macedonian context) in a way that reflected their own more fussy ways

Plutarch would most assuredly come under the auspices of "fussy ways" - in more ways than one. He didn't, for example, sit comfortably with notion that Macedonian royalty could indulge in polygamy as it did. Philip's propensity to take a political wife at the drop of a helm whilst concomitantly carousing with other sexual partners - male or female - will have given him the beginnings of a peptic ulcer.

There does appear to be evidence that, when it came to drinking, Alexander was the best of the Macedonians in this as he was in most other fields. I realise you think the words of Hermolaus are interpolations and they may well be. Arrian claims that "some writers" report this. It may be that he refers to Curtius. Given he uses "some" he more likely refers to earlier sources in the same way he states "most authorities" do not hold with the version of events related by Ptolemy or Aristobulus. It would seem that the tradition of Hermolaus' words was well spread and began early. As well, he need not mention such given that the judicial murders and orientalising arrogance will well have served as his justification.

Philip was indeed fond of wine as well as the rest of that old chestnut, women and song. To which we might add “pages”. Satyrus’ description fits with what we know fairly readily. The quote left off the fellow’s dedication to a rather duplicitous diplomacy, in some cases, outright lying. But, what the heck? For the most part he was dealing with Athenian politicians who were, in competing equal parts, venal, hypocritical and credulous. They got, in what must assuredly have warmed the lobes of Philip’s liver, a poetic justice writ as large as the city’s poetic tradition.

The sources’ descriptions of Alexander’s last days, after the escape from Gedrosia, are salted with two things: feasting and drinking and the preparations for Arabia. Other stories (the embassies, the Indian philosopher’s immolation etc) are there of course. The distinct impression I get is that Alexander was drinking regularly. I believe there was an Alexander that the king didn’t particularly like. This was the fellow he woke up to the next day. If it becomes increasingly difficult to live with that fellow then you either wake up later or start earlier.

To me there seems to be a little of that going on. That Plutarch states Alexander requested, and was given, “chilled wine” to drink whilst he was gripped by fever is, I think, eloquent testimony. This being, of course, in stark contrast to the orders given by Alexander to the physician tending the fever ridden Hephaestion. As well we know, he too died.

[Paralus]

It is tempting to suspect that Trogus is using Alexander and Philip as proxies for discussing the characters of Pompey and Caesar. He could not of course do so openly without courting death.

That may or may not be so. I believe that Hammond's reasoning is fairly cogent in naming Satyrus. This based on the close similarities between Athenaeus' descriptions of, for instance, the argument between Philip and Alexander at the former's wedding banquet and the results of Olympias' rage. Here Athenaeus named Satyrus as his source Life of Philip (the full argument in The sources of Justin on Macedonia to the death of Philip, CQ, 41 [1991]496-508)

Pothosians will recall that Caesar and Pompey were also father and son

Now that's an interesting statement. Caesar father of Pompey? I realise that, with no "heir" that Caesar adopted Octavian but I fail to recall any similar adoption of his great ememy Pompey. Perhaps, given that Julius Caesar was six odd years Pompey's junior, you are referring to the fact that Caesar gave Pompey his daughter Julia in marriage thus making him a son in-law?

If so, that's a rather long metaphorical, not to say, rhetorical bow for Trogus to draw.

[marcus]

Pothosians will recall that Caesar and Pompey were also father and son, but Trogus may be drawing a parallel between Caesar and Alexander, just as Plutarch did a century later.

Just in case they don't, however, I assume you are referring to Pompey being Caesar's son-in-law (for a time, anyway - but after Julia's death did they still count as being 'related'?)

ATB

[Taphoi]

I believe that Hammond's reasoning is fairly cogent in naming Satyrus. This based on the close similarities between Athenaeus' descriptions of, for instance, the argument between Philip and Alexander at the former's wedding banquet and the results of Olympias' rage. Here Athenaeus named Satyrus as his source Life of Philip (the full argument in The sources of Justin on Macedonia to the death of Philip, CQ, 41 [1991]496-508)

There may be elements of Satyrus in some of the detailed stories in Justin. I was only referring to the peroration at the end of Book 9. It looks much more like Trogus himself, especially because the facts he chooses to cite for Alexander and Philip work so well for Caesar and Pompey. For example, Caesar arrested and killed Pothinus at a banquet. Caesar succeeded Pompey in effect and he did complete the establishment of the Roman Empire, whereas Pompey was significantly involved in the groundwork. The points about the one wishing to be loved and to reign with his friends and the other to rule over them and be feared probably work better for Pompey and Caesar than for Philip and Alexander. It is a bit strange to suggest that Philip shared his powers with his friends.

At the very least, it looks like Trogus was using the politics of his own era as a key to interpret the relationship of Philip and Alexander.

Of course I was referring to the marriage of Caesar's daughter to Pompey, which is the inverse of the relationship between Alexander and Philip, but the similarities do not have to be precise to work for Trogus.

It would be a mistake to think that Trogus was writing unadulterated history. In fact there is clearly an enormous amount of political intent in the Philippic History. Curtius also seems to use his history of Alexander to make political comments on his own era.

Btw The accusation of heavy drinking against Alexander seems to have been instigated by Ephippus of Olynthus, who particularly blamed Alexander's death on the wrath of Dionysus (God of wine), due to linkage with the Cup of Heracles poisoning story. The evidence generally supports the conclusion that Alexander's drinking habits were unexceptional, but Macedonians did sometimes throw wild parties!

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Of course I was referring to the marriage of Caesar's daughter to Pompey, which is the inverse of the relationship between Alexander and Philip, but the similarities do not have to be precise to work for Trogus.

Rubbish.

[amyntoros]

. It looks much more like Trogus himself, especially because the facts he chooses to cite for Alexander and Philip work so well for Caesar and Pompey. For example, Caesar arrested and killed Pothinus at a banquet. Caesar succeeded Pompey in effect and he did complete the establishment of the Roman Empire, whereas Pompey was significantly involved in the groundwork. The points about the one wishing to be loved and to reign with his friends and the other to rule over them and be feared probably work better for Pompey and Caesar than for Philip and Alexander. It is a bit strange to suggest that Philip shared his powers with his friends.

At the very least, it looks like Trogus was using the politics of his own era as a key to interpret the relationship of Philip and Alexander.

The problem is that I find it a strange that neither character suffers too much by comparison. When demonstrating an obvious preference for Pompey over Caesar, Lucan, writing at a later date, tears into Caesar …and Alexander by default. When he shows his dislike for Alexander, he spares nothing!

(10.20) There lies the mad son of Macedonian Philip, that fortunate freebooter, cut off by a death that avenged the world. The limbs that should have been scattered over the whole earth they laid in a hallowed shrine; Fortune spared his dead body, and the destiny of his reign endured to the last. For if Freedom had ever made men their own masters again, his body would have been preserved for mockery – a man who was born to teach this bad lesson to the world, that so many lands may obey one lord.

Now if Trogus felt unable to openly demonstrate his politics and the passage is meant to disguise a comparison between Pompey and Caesar and thereby a preference for the Republic, it seems lacking in bite. I.e., it would have been interpreted as “Caesar” being greater than Pompey in both his vices and his virtues! And that Pompey had more cunning and Caesar had more honor! And did Pompey really show no mercy, even to his allies? So a few statements may work better for Pompey and Caesar, but many do not. I think that any ancient reading Trogus’ histories would have been hard put to associate the whole passage with Pompey versus Caesar, Republic versus Empire. And if they did, they must have had a rather confused reaction.

Btw The accusation of heavy drinking against Alexander seems to have been instigated by Ephippus of Olynthus, who particularly blamed Alexander's death on the wrath of Dionysus (God of wine), due to linkage with the Cup of Heracles poisoning story. The evidence generally supports the conclusion that Alexander's drinking habits were unexceptional, but Macedonians did sometimes throw wild parties!

I presume that you mean “unexceptional” within the hard drinking Macedonian culture?

Best wishes,

[Taphoi]

And did Pompey really show no mercy, even to his allies?

First problem is that I don't see this phrase in the modern Latin version of Justin. Looks like Watson either found it in another manuscript or interpolated it into his text.

Assuming it was in a manuscript, ally in Latin is most likely socius. Second problem is therefore that socius also meant specifically Italians outside Latium who were allied with the Romans. Now Wikipedia tells us:

Pompey easily made himself master of [Sicily] in 82 BC. Sicily was strategically very important, since the island held the majority of Rome's grain supply. Without it, the city population would starve and riots would certainly ensue. Pompey dealt with the resistance with a harsh hand, executing Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and his supporters. When the citizens complained about his methods he replied with one of his most famous quotations: "Won't you stop citing laws to us who have our swords by our sides?"

Therefore quite specifically Pompey showed no mercy to the Socii.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

In fact there is clearly an enormous amount of political intent in the Philippic History. Curtius also seems to use his history of Alexander to make political comments on his own era.

As there is in many a history – it is in the nature of the beast. Plutarch bemoans that his homeland could no longer produce anyone like the individuals he compares with the more contemporaneous Romans of his lives. Indeed it almost like we “were there before you”.

Of course I was referring to the marriage of Caesar's daughter to Pompey, which is the inverse of the relationship between Alexander and Philip, but the similarities do not have to be precise to work for Trogus.

Then he might just as well have written of Philip and Attalus. And, to fill out my earlier brusque dismissal, you actually wrote nothing of the sort. You wrote:

Pothosians will recall that Caesar and Pompey were also father and son

No clarifications with respect to the fact that Pompey was a son in-law or mention of an "inverse reationship"; only the bald assertion that Pothosians will recall that Caesar was Pompey’s father. This is demonstrably untrue. Further, I do not see that Roman readers will have accepted the analogy, no matter how “precise” or imprecise the relationship or “similarities” needed to be.

The imprecision here is your language.

[amyntoros]

Assuming it was in a manuscript, ally in Latin is most likely socius. Second problem is therefore that socius also meant specifically Italians outside Latium who were allied with the Romans.

The trouble I have with this theory is that although socius may have meant specifically Italians outside Latinum to the Romans, you are also telling us that if a Latin writer wanted to say “allies” he would most likely have written “socius” in a manuscript. So Trogus would still have used the same word when writing about Philip!

The majority of the statements fit Philip and Alexander all too well and when a connection isn’t immediately obvious one can still be found. In the sentence “The one wished to reign with his friends, the other to reign over them” one could argue that Trogus was thinking about Philip/Attalus connection, i.e., Philip ruled “with” his generals and he certainly treated Attalus as a friend. Also, no complete history of Philip has survived to our time so there is much that we don’t know about him. And as far as Alexander wanting to reign over his friends, arguments could be made either way. I’m surprised that they haven’t already appeared in this thread, although the alcohol issue seems to have taken precedence.

Pardon the pun, but in this instance it is all too Da Trogus Code for me to be convinced that this segment of Justin was meant to be about Pompey and Caesar. Any parallels seem to be an accident of history. I can see that Justin may have wanted his writers to notice these, but I still believe his subjects were Philip and Alexander.

Best regards,

[marcus]

Pardon the pun, but in this instance it is all too Da Trogus Code for me to be convinced that this segment of Justin was meant to be about Pompey and Caesar. Any parallels seem to be an accident of history. I can see that Justin may have wanted his writers to notice these, but I still believe his subjects were Philip and Alexander.

Oh, I have no doubt that his subjects were Philip and Alexander; but surely the point about it is that Trogus chose them as his subjects because they provided a way to make a commentary on his own time? Whether Justin also meant his readers to see the same parallels is difficult to judge - and is probably further muddied by the fact that Justin might have been epitomising a much more blatantly propagandist piece ... so, for example, the comparisons with Caesar and Pompey might have been much more evident in Trogus, but became muddled when shortened by Justin.

ATB

[Taphoi]

I think that any ancient reading Trogus’ histories would have been hard put to associate the whole passage with Pompey versus Caesar, Republic versus Empire. And if they did, they must have had a rather confused reaction.

I would note that the parallel was obvious to me even with my sketchy and imperfect knowledge of their history. We have yet to establish anything in the passage that could not have applied equally to Pompey and Caesar and there are quite a lot of statements in it. The attention to literature fits the fact that Caesar was famous for his Commentaries.

No clarifications with respect to the fact that Pompey was a son in-law or mention of an "inverse reationship"; only the bald assertion that Pothosians will recall that Caesar was Pompey’s father.

All I wrote was that there was a father-son relationship between Caesar and Pompey just as there was between Philip and Alexander. I'm surprised that this factual observation has proved controversial.

The trouble I have with this theory is that although socius may have meant specifically Italians outside Latinum to the Romans, you are also telling us that if a Latin writer wanted to say “allies” he would most likely have written “socius” in a manuscript. So Trogus would still have used the same word when writing about Philip!

Actually I think we do the same as the Romans with the same word. The Allies means the coalition against Hitler, but this has not stopped us using the word in its general sense as well.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Oh, I have no doubt that his subjects were Philip and Alexander; but surely the point about it is that Trogus chose them as his subjects because they provided a way to make a commentary on his own time? Whether Justin also meant his readers to see the same parallels is difficult to judge - and is probably further muddied by the fact that Justin might have been epitomising a much more blatantly propagandist piece ... so, for example, the comparisons with Caesar and Pompey might have been much more evident in Trogus, but became muddled when shortened by Justin.

And even the most blatant propagandist statements can contain an underlying truth, so if others here were to share your understanding then it might mean that we could return to discussing the Justin passage as it applies to Philip and Alexander. Of course, discussion of the topic may have fizzled out by now, as it is wont to do. If so ... Onward and Upward!

Best regards,

[marcus]

Oh, I have no doubt that his subjects were Philip and Alexander; but surely the point about it is that Trogus chose them as his subjects because they provided a way to make a commentary on his own time? Whether Justin also meant his readers to see the same parallels is difficult to judge - and is probably further muddied by the fact that Justin might have been epitomising a much more blatantly propagandist piece ... so, for example, the comparisons with Caesar and Pompey might have been much more evident in Trogus, but became muddled when shortened by Justin.

And even the most blatant propagandist statements can contain an underlying truth, so if others here were to share your understanding then it might mean that we could return to discussing the Justin passage as it applies to Philip and Alexander. Of course, discussion of the topic may have fizzled out by now, as it is wont to do. If so ... Onward and Upward!

Best regards,

It was a good topic ...

I haven't really had a chance to pay much attention to what people have actually discussed, however, which is why I haven't put in my tuppence-worth. It would be worth two threads, really - one to discuss the underlying propaganda of Trogus, the other to discuss Justin's views (his own or borrowed) about P and A ...

ATB

[Paralus]

For example, Caesar arrested and killed Pothinus at a banquet. Caesar succeeded Pompey in effect and he did complete the establishment of the Roman Empire, whereas Pompey was significantly involved in the groundwork. The points about the one wishing to be loved and to reign with his friends and the other to rule over them and be feared probably work better for Pompey and Caesar than for Philip and Alexander. It is a bit strange to suggest that Philip shared his powers with his friends.

No, at best Caesar had the execrable Egyptian eunuch killed. His co-conspirator, Achillas, is variously reported as having escaped or been murdered by Cleopatra's eucnuch. Plutarch who describes this has Caesar’s barber as reporting the eunuch’s plot and Caesar having the hall “surrounded and the eunuch killed”. I’d suggest that the killing of an Egyptian eunuch, already proven a murderous and untrustworthy conveyance, is a far stretch from Alexander murdering, by his own hands, a Macedonian noble.

The descriptions of Philip’s court paint a picture of a King at pains to have his nobility, particularly the closest of them, close and to feel part of the process. Philip took pains to appear little different to his nobles who, though lesser in rank in reality, shared a common bond with their king who looked and acted little if any different to them. By his end in Babylon, it would be a bit strange to suggest that the Macedonian rank and file shared this view of Alexander.

Your assertion that Pompey significantly laid the groundwork of the Roman Empire which Caesar finished, though partially correct, belies the fact that this work continued after Caesar's death by his adoptive son Octavian. The civil strife in Rome was in no way resolved prior to Caesar’s death and had he lived, he will have to had to deal with those who opposed him and the ambition of both his adoptive son and Anthony. The groundwork of Empire over Republic was begun much earlier via the Marian Wars and the actors of that first Triumvirate. In a territorial sense, Caesar’s wars in Gaul added probably as much territory (if not wealth) as Pompey’s in the East.

All I wrote was that there was a father-son relationship between Caesar and Pompey just as there was between Philip and Alexander. I'm surprised that this factual observation has proved controversial.

In which case, referring to your argument above, the son left the empire building to the father?

The only relationship between the two resulted from the political marriage of Caesar’s daughter Julia – part of the first Triumvir deal – so making Caesar Pompey’s father in law. They plainly shared nothing like the relationship that Philip and Alexander had. Caesar and Pompyt were no more father and son than were Philip and Attalus. They shared a rivalry for the position of “first citizen” and, as an aside, neither Caesar, Pompey, Crassus nor Anthony will have shared that with any “friends” any more than the ultimate winner – Octavian – ended up doing.