Argeads and Macedonian nobility

[alejandro]

Dear allLately I have been reading some less-romanticized Alexander-related literature, and I have to admit that I find it fascinating.
As most of you, I suppose, I had my first encounter with Alexander during secondary school, and the character really hooked me, though there was not much more than a paragraph related to him in my history textbook.
My interest faded a bit after that, but when in university my brother gave me as a present a copy of one of Mary RenaultGÇÖs books, I was GÇ£back in (ATGGÇÖs) businessGÇ¥ again.
But though Mary RenaultGÇÖs books are very well written and usually based on a firm historical background, the main problem was her interpretation of the facts: they were always favourable to Alexander.
Then I got access to several scholar journals (the benefit of still being a student!) and started visiting this very forum, and new ideas flourished.
Despite having an analytical mind (and studying economics, that usually implies assuming that everyoneGÇÖs actions are taken in order to achieve a GÇôusually financial/economic- benefit), it was difficult to abandon RenaultGÇÖs perspective.
But after reading Heckel (a fantastic book) and some articles by other authors (mainly Badian), the picture changed quite a lot. And I like it! I mean, the fact of discovering an Alexander more GÇ£humanGÇ¥, not the perfect hero of Renault and Tarn, is a welcome wind of change (for me at least). I still admire him, and probably even more, because he actually did several very good things, DESPITE all the temptations he had to face. He may have given in to some of them, but who doesnGÇÖt? And being king, the temptations would probably have been quite difficult to GÇ£circumventGÇ¥.
In any case, my question is related to a specific article I read (sorry, I forgot the reference), where the authorGÇÖs thesis is that Alexander (and Philip and all the Argeads before him) had a very precarious power base, only sustained by military victories, and this would explain his GÇ£longingGÇ¥ to conquest the whole world. The reason for this weak royal position, argued the author, is that Macedonian kings were not absolute rulers, but GÇ£primus inter paresGÇ¥, ie, the first among the aristocrats. Hence, they needed their support at every step they took, and this support was quickly withdrawn as soon as the military results were adverse.
I particularly disagree with the argument that this would be the ONLY reason for Alexander willing to conquer the whole world, but I find the description of the Mace

[alejandro]

I particularly disagree with the argument that this would be the ONLY reason for Alexander willing to conquer the whole world, but I find the description of the Macedonian royalty as very limited by the aristocracy a very appealing one. I know there has been quite a discussion about the degree of independence of the Argeads, but I still didnGÇÖt find any conclusive evidence supporting any position.
The interesting corollary of this GÇ£primus-inter-paresGÇ¥ theory, is that a plot to kill Alexander would not be so outrageous as most people consider (not in the sense that he didnGÇÖt achieve military success, but maybe too much of it! ie, he was already planning an expedition to the west GÇôor so Perdikkas said-, instead of stopping there and enjoying himself). Not that I support the poison theory, I simply do not discard it.
Therefere, I would like to know your thoughts, especially regarding the organization of the state in Macedon and the relationship between the king and the nobility.
Thanks in advance
Best wishes,Alejandro