Nicator wrote:marcus wrote:Since when did a pronounced limp, caused in battle (which proved to everyone that Philip was a warrior), or having one eye (the other being lost in battle) cause anyone to worry about Philip's ability as a general or as a king? How could these two things lead, directly or indirectly, to his downfall?
The issue was Philip's physical capabilities. To lead that battle into Asia, a younger man who was incredibly physically fit would certainly be a better candidate. Especially, since this was very likely to grow into a long and protracted affair.
But there is no indication that Philip's physical capabilities were impaired by his wounds. After all, he won Chaeronea only two years before his death. And his leading general in Asia at the time of his death was a man who was almost certainly some good few years older than Philip. So if people accepted Parmenion as a general, why would they not accept Philip? I cannot see how anyone would have considered him unfit to command the invasion of Asia. And there is no indication that the invasion was going to be a long and protracted affair.
Nicator wrote:As stated above, I'm not convinced that Alexander OR Olympias had anything to do with it. Though this does not preclude the possibility that they were. The issue I was pointing out was that Philip was muddying up the succession line to such an extent that it seemed someone may have wanted to clarify things a bit.
But my contention is that Philip was not muddying the succession line. Even if Cleopatra's child was a boy (and as Justin is the only source who says that it was, it is highly dubious - and I assume you will now say something about the source material, but the fact is that, had it been a boy, the sources would have said something, more unanimously, and the other sources all say it was a girl), how does that muddy the succession?
Nicator wrote: Not sure why you would say my analysis doesn't hold true. What analysis?
Well, I suppose you've just answered that one ...
(Sorry, that was a bit cheap.)
Nicator wrote:The perspective I'm angling at here is that since Philip was knocked off, it was a failure. His actions may have put him on the wrong side of the power-brokers behind the scenes. And that may have been his downfall.
There is no way that anyone can conclude that Philip's marriage to Cleopatra was a failure. Cleopatra gave him a useful ally in Attalus, and she gave him a child. That's a success. You cannot call it a failure if, according to your interpretation, someone else didn't like it.
Anyway, who were these power-brokers who were so dissatisfied with Philip's marriage to Cleopatra? Parmenion, who was happy for Attalus to marry his daughter, thus allying himself to Philip's new father-in-law? Hmm, can't be him, then. Maybe Antipater, I suppose, but you'll need to explain why he would have been disgruntled, because it isn't enough to say that he might have been without explaining why. Who else is in the frame?
Nicator wrote:Not that I disagree with you about the sex of Cleo's child...though it certainly could have been a boy...we'll just never know. Anyway, it is irrelevant. The marriage was the big issue and if there wasn't a boy yet, the chance that a boy was on the way would have been enough reason to take action.
The sex of the child isn't irrelevant at all. And why would the marriage be a big issue, when Philip had already married six times before? You need to explain your reasoning.
Nicator wrote:You keep using the word 'Assassinated'. This is also questionable. As you know, it could have just been a murder by a jealous lover. Alexander was ready now...and in 5 years, this prodigious athlete, educated by Aristotle, could be taken out by Philip or his cronies altogether. It's just possible that (here I go again) the unknown power-brokers behind the scenes felt action was necessary. And on that blue-blooded marriage, inevitable.
I do indeed use the word "assassinated", but I will happily say "murdered" instead if it makes you feel better. But again you appear to contradict yourself. It can't be "just a murder by a jealous lover", and at the same time be an orchestrated removal of Philip by these "unknown power-brokers", hence an "assassination". It has to be one or the other.
And I'd love to know more about these "unknown power-brokers". If they weren't Philip's cronies, whom you have just suggested would gang up with Philip to deal with Alexander in a few years, then who were they? If they can't stop Philip from bumping off Alexander in a few years, then they aren't very good power-brokers; but if they kill Philip so that he can't kill Alexander, then they obviously aren't Philip's cronies. So who are they, that wield that much power in Macedonia but aren't Philip's men? More to the point, if they are so powerful, then why are they unknown to us?
ATB