Philip II past.

[dean]

Hello,
First off, just to say that I am very pleased to see this site open for business again!
Second, I have been reading "Alexander" by Gisbert Haeffs. It is fiction but based supposedly on "fact"(whatever that means)
Anyway, in the book he talks about Philip's parents-Amyntas III and Euridike. I never realised that there could be such a foul woman. Haeffs says that she was involved in the murder of Amyntas along with Ptolemy Aloro(her lover and son in law) and that in 368 BC again in complicity with Ptolemy killed Eurinone her daughter(Ptolemy's wife), not to mention her own son Alexander II.
Wait up because the plot thickens.
The book states that it is believed that Philip II killed her in 359.
Now I have a doubt with any historical novel about certain facts and wondered if there was anyone who could verify the info because on the web I have found precious little.
Best wishes and pleased once more to be here.
Dean.

[marcus]

Hi Dean,I remember reading about these shenanigans in one of Hammond's books, but I'm not sure how true they are, or whether they are conjecture. I was recently reading JR Ellis' book on Philip and his take on it all was that none of this happened - although from the sequence of deaths, regencies, etc. a conspiracy theorist could easily posit the events in the way you describe.One thing I am pretty sure of, is that Eurydike died (or was killed) during the reign of Perdikkas, and so before Philip came to power. I'm not aware that there is any source that says that Philip killed her.All the bestMarcus

[x]

Well, it's fiction...As I recall (and this is from memory so fellow forum viewers, please correct me if I am wrong) Amyntas died in his sleep - he was in his 80's I think. Eurydike gets a lot of bad press - I believe she died around 340BC. There's a lot of nefarious stuff attributed to her that quite frankly is probably a lot of crap. The males of the Argead house were more than capable of knocking each other off without the intervention of Eurydike. Oe has to remember Macedon was ruled by men, not by women, even if Olympias was unhappy about that! Historically she supposedly arranged for the death of her eldest son Alexandros (at a dance I think) at the behest of her lover Ptolemy, who was regent for her second in line son Perdikkas. Naturally, Ptolemy gets eliminated and she secures the throne for Perdikkas, who is then joined by Philip who was a hostage in Thebes under Alexandros and Ptolemy. When Perdikkas was killed in battle, Philip became King. As for Philip killing his mother, well, as I said, it is fiction. See Kate Mortensen's excellent article on Eurydike in the Ancient History Bulletin, which unfortunately is not available for viewing on-line right now.

[dean]

Hello,
I had my suspicions about the truth of Philip's matricide- it really is incredible- in the glossary at the back of Gisbert Haeffs book, there are listed the main characters of the book and there are dates,names and events that supposedly are 100% factual.I find it unbelievable that authors/novelists, who wish to have some credibility can rewrite history to suit their own ends. For me it is misleading especially when it is written in a glossary at the back of the book, after the novel.
a)to say that one of the most famous kings of antiquity killed his own mother with approximate dates and b)that Amyntas III was killed by his plotting wife without evidence.While we are on the subject of Philip- what were the reasons for his being taken hostage in Athens?
I understand that it was there that he was able to see the phalanx to later use in his own army.Regards,
Dean.

[marcus]

Hi Dean,Philip went to Thebes (not Athens) as a 'hostage' after the Theban general Pelopidas was 'asked' to intervene in the internecine struggles in Macedonia - there were a number of different factions slugging it out. About 30 (if I remember) hostages went, Philip included.He will certainly have learned a lot about warfare while he was at Thebes, but there is nothing but conjecture to suppose that anything he saw there specifically shaped his later military innovations.All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hi Marcus,
I seemed for some reason to be under the impression that Philip had been inspired to develop the phalanx because of his experience in Thebes where perhaps it was an important part of the military structure/design.I wonder though where the original idea of the sarissa was born. Just recently watching the screen adaptation of "Two Towers" by Tolkien I found the final battle made me think more of a reconstruction of the battle of Guagamela or Issos,with sarissas and all than about elves and dragons.Take care,
Dean.

[marcus]

Hi Dean,The problem is, that all the Greek city states fought in phalanx, so Philip didn't need to go to Thebes to learn about it. I think that it is mere conjecture that he was particularly, or specifically inspired by what he saw in Thebes - I don't think there is any proof, just what people have surmised.But if I'm wrong I'm sure others will correct me.All the bestMarcus

[susan]

Philip was meant to have learnt a lot from Epaminondas who was a Theban strategist, while he was living in Thebes. I expect from his later history that he was an exceptionally able student.Susan

[marcus]

Indeed. I bet the Thebans kicked themselves after Chaeronea, for having allowed Philip to learn so much from their big cheese!All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hello,Talking about that battle,In a book that I was reading recently the author talked about the idea that Demosthenes was motivated more by Persian money than by Patriotic reasons and that that is one of the reasons why he fled the battlefield of Chaeronea.Did Philip give Alexander a really great responsiblity in this engagement?I understand that in this battle, Alexander, still in his teens? won the army of Thebes which were up to press undefeated.Best wishes,Dean.

[marcus]

I'm not sure about whether Demosthenes motives had anything to do with his fleeing from the battlefield. A great number of Athenians will have run away, once defeat was certain, and Demosthenes gets the mention because he was so well known as an opponent of Philip. Alexander was about 18 at the time, and he was given command of the left wing of the army. There is actually some debate as to the role that the cavalry, under Alexander, had in the battle and, in particular, in the destruction of the Sacred Band; but if the arguments put forward (by Plutarch, if I recall correctly) during the Cleitus episode are anything to go by, he does seem to have played a fairly crucial role.All the bestMarcus