Philotas' execution

[marcus]

I read that argument for the first time in, I think, Green. Apparently he has since revised his opinion on the Granicus, but in my edition of the book there is an appendix which goes into detail about why he felt the battle happened this way. His reasoning was based on detailed comparison of the sources - in particular the way the Vulgate describes the battle - plus quite a lot of common sense about the likelihood of a cavalry charge across a river bed, with no stirrups, being successful.It's an interesting version of events, and, from a purely logical viewpoint, no more or less likely than the "official" version.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

I read that argument for the first time in, I think, Green. Apparently he has since revised his opinion on the Granicus, but in my edition of the book there is an appendix which goes into detail about why he felt the battle happened this way. His reasoning was based on detailed comparison of the sources - in particular the way the Vulgate describes the battle - plus quite a lot of common sense about the likelihood of a cavalry charge across a river bed, with no stirrups, being successful.It's an interesting version of events, and, from a purely logical viewpoint, no more or less likely than the "official" version.ATBMarcus

[Paralus]

G'day all. Just returned from holidays. Can't seem to leave without things getting out of hand! Where to startGǪ"His writing style (Green's) tends more towards the seductive rather than the provocative. Though he will rarely steer you too far from the beaten trail of fact, and his grasp of the genre is comprehensive and impressive, sometimes he writes a bit too much with a purpose."You cheeky "old bastard" (a term of endearment in Australia - true) Nicator! Of course he writes with a purpose. And not afraid to be wrong GÇô or to admit it (see below). If only a few more were more like him. Sure it's proper to acknowledge the vagaries of the source material, but the next "historian" who hedges all bets and plays down the middle with a Geoffrey Boycott bat will simply be the next of a conga line similar minded "individuals" (bring us more Ernst Badians). Marcus:"I read that argument for the first time in, I think, Green. Apparently he has since revised his opinion on the Granicus, but in my edition of the book there is an appendix which goes into detail about why he felt the battle happened this way."You and I both read that argument in Green. Indeed it is an argument he now concedes "was flat wrong". You will find that frank admission in the preface to the edition we both have: the 1991 reprint (page xiv). Just on this, I think his suspicions are most likely correct. The version we are left with makes very little sense at all from the Persian side. How it actually happened we'll never know.Have to say, having begun the re-read of "Alexander to Actium" while on holidays, I can't recommend this work strongly enough.Paralus

[Paralus]

G'day all. Just returned from holidays. Can't seem to leave without things getting out of hand! Where to startGǪ"His writing style (Green's) tends more towards the seductive rather than the provocative. Though he will rarely steer you too far from the beaten trail of fact, and his grasp of the genre is comprehensive and impressive, sometimes he writes a bit too much with a purpose."You cheeky "old bastard" (a term of endearment in Australia - true) Nicator! Of course he writes with a purpose. And not afraid to be wrong GÇô or to admit it (see below). If only a few more were more like him. Sure it's proper to acknowledge the vagaries of the source material, but the next "historian" who hedges all bets and plays down the middle with a Geoffrey Boycott bat will simply be the next of a conga line similar minded "individuals" (bring us more Ernst Badians). Marcus:"I read that argument for the first time in, I think, Green. Apparently he has since revised his opinion on the Granicus, but in my edition of the book there is an appendix which goes into detail about why he felt the battle happened this way."You and I both read that argument in Green. Indeed it is an argument he now concedes "was flat wrong". You will find that frank admission in the preface to the edition we both have: the 1991 reprint (page xiv). Just on this, I think his suspicions are most likely correct. The version we are left with makes very little sense at all from the Persian side. How it actually happened we'll never know.Have to say, having begun the re-read of "Alexander to Actium" while on holidays, I can't recommend this work strongly enough.Paralus

[Paralus]

This discussion goes to the 'heart"of Alexander and his evolving (or devolving) relationship with the Macedonian aristocracy and how it related to the army. I'm with Kenny here.My own view is that Alexander "put up" with Philotas. This was because he had little choice. Parmenion was his father's "go-to" man. This was a relationship that predated Alexander. More importantly, the relationship between the army that Philip re-made and its King's stand in (Parmenion) predated Alexander. By the time Alexander ascended the throne, Parmenion had salted the army and its commands with sons, nephews and in-laws to such an extent that to remove them was to confront him (and visa versa). Philotas is the salutary example.Alexander did not have the luxury of altering any of this when he took over his father's Asian enterprise. Already he had removed (by absolute necessity GÇô not to say revenge) Attalus. Too, he'd left the able Antipater in what was originally to be his position (regent of Europe). Parmenion was essential to the army and, inter alia, the entire enterprise.By the time of the allegations against Philotas (and therefore his father) this situation no longer obtained. Alexander was busy arranging his own "salting". Which salting had little to do with the recidivist Macedonian old guard and everything to do with the advancement of his own trusted (in as much as he ever trusted anyone outside of Hephaestion) "companions" GÇô along with Medes and Iranians, of course.As to the fact that Parmenion was posted in command of Alexander's rear, that's true GÇô a part of it. This though, was a job already ably performed (many times in fact) by Monophthalmos (Antigonus). In essence the Parmenion posting should better be seen as a "semi-retirement". Did the old general want it? Who knows? The sources are so bent against him in one way or another (eg, "age sapped his courage" at Gaugamela) that it can be hard to tell. Certainly accounts using Callisthenes' writings will reflect the propaganda that Alexander wanted. And Alexander wanted him out of the way GÇô he was a lightning rod for those of the same mind as Cleitus in the army.Pardon the length...continued...

[Paralus]

This discussion goes to the 'heart"of Alexander and his evolving (or devolving) relationship with the Macedonian aristocracy and how it related to the army. I'm with Kenny here.My own view is that Alexander "put up" with Philotas. This was because he had little choice. Parmenion was his father's "go-to" man. This was a relationship that predated Alexander. More importantly, the relationship between the army that Philip re-made and its King's stand in (Parmenion) predated Alexander. By the time Alexander ascended the throne, Parmenion had salted the army and its commands with sons, nephews and in-laws to such an extent that to remove them was to confront him (and visa versa). Philotas is the salutary example.Alexander did not have the luxury of altering any of this when he took over his father's Asian enterprise. Already he had removed (by absolute necessity GÇô not to say revenge) Attalus. Too, he'd left the able Antipater in what was originally to be his position (regent of Europe). Parmenion was essential to the army and, inter alia, the entire enterprise.By the time of the allegations against Philotas (and therefore his father) this situation no longer obtained. Alexander was busy arranging his own "salting". Which salting had little to do with the recidivist Macedonian old guard and everything to do with the advancement of his own trusted (in as much as he ever trusted anyone outside of Hephaestion) "companions" GÇô along with Medes and Iranians, of course.As to the fact that Parmenion was posted in command of Alexander's rear, that's true GÇô a part of it. This though, was a job already ably performed (many times in fact) by Monophthalmos (Antigonus). In essence the Parmenion posting should better be seen as a "semi-retirement". Did the old general want it? Who knows? The sources are so bent against him in one way or another (eg, "age sapped his courage" at Gaugamela) that it can be hard to tell. Certainly accounts using Callisthenes' writings will reflect the propaganda that Alexander wanted. And Alexander wanted him out of the way GÇô he was a lightning rod for those of the same mind as Cleitus in the army.Pardon the length...continued...

[Paralus]

And propaganda it was. This was a general absolutely trusted by both Philip and the Macedonian army. A general who had lead this army in many campaigns GÇô including the victorious campaign against the Illyrians and Paeonians , the news of which reached Philip at Potidea (that quintessential "Poland" of Greece: declare war and invest Potidea first) at the same time as the news that Olympias had borne him a son to be called Alexander. The same general who was (along with the unfortunately loud-mouthed Attalus) given command of the initial invasion force that awaited Alexander in Hellespontine Phrygia. Obviously someone more than a little capable.Philip re-built the Macedonian army (and Macedonia) not only by professional training and reform, but by utilising GÇô out of necessity GÇô the "baronial" structure of Macedonian society. This meant the accommodating and bending (by marriage, appointment, the taking of sons into the "King's Companions", etc) of the aristocracy to suit his purposes. By the time that Philotas and his father were murdered, Alexander had less and less use for any of this. Indeed it was a hindrance GÇô the army and "Macedonia" was evolving and becoming something else. That something else increasingly had little room for the Parmenions and Philotas of the world.Or for the Antipaters. That though, will be the subject of another post.
Paralus.

[Paralus]

And propaganda it was. This was a general absolutely trusted by both Philip and the Macedonian army. A general who had lead this army in many campaigns GÇô including the victorious campaign against the Illyrians and Paeonians , the news of which reached Philip at Potidea (that quintessential "Poland" of Greece: declare war and invest Potidea first) at the same time as the news that Olympias had borne him a son to be called Alexander. The same general who was (along with the unfortunately loud-mouthed Attalus) given command of the initial invasion force that awaited Alexander in Hellespontine Phrygia. Obviously someone more than a little capable.Philip re-built the Macedonian army (and Macedonia) not only by professional training and reform, but by utilising GÇô out of necessity GÇô the "baronial" structure of Macedonian society. This meant the accommodating and bending (by marriage, appointment, the taking of sons into the "King's Companions", etc) of the aristocracy to suit his purposes. By the time that Philotas and his father were murdered, Alexander had less and less use for any of this. Indeed it was a hindrance GÇô the army and "Macedonia" was evolving and becoming something else. That something else increasingly had little room for the Parmenions and Philotas of the world.Or for the Antipaters. That though, will be the subject of another post.
Paralus.

[Nicator]

You cheeky "old bastard" (a term of endearment in Australia - true) Nicator! Of course he writes with a purpose. And not afraid to be wrong GÇô or to admit it (see below). If only a few more were more like him. Sure it's proper to acknowledge the vagaries of the source material, but the next "historian" who hedges all bets and plays down the middle with a Geoffrey Boycott bat will simply be the next of a conga line similar minded "individuals" (bring us more Ernst Badians). Paralus, I've got to admit, I've never been called a "cheeky old bastard", either singly or in any combination. And believe me, I'm laughing my ass off over it! I actually had to look up cheeky..."offensively bold". Then I laughed even harder. I guess it's a terrific compliment, at least that's the way I'm taking it I didn't mean to schathe your Greenian sensibilities though, as you know my affinity for his style is without question. But nothing made me crack up as much as the "conga line" bit...thank you, and welcome back from your vaca.Nicator

[Nicator]

You cheeky "old bastard" (a term of endearment in Australia - true) Nicator! Of course he writes with a purpose. And not afraid to be wrong GÇô or to admit it (see below). If only a few more were more like him. Sure it's proper to acknowledge the vagaries of the source material, but the next "historian" who hedges all bets and plays down the middle with a Geoffrey Boycott bat will simply be the next of a conga line similar minded "individuals" (bring us more Ernst Badians). Paralus, I've got to admit, I've never been called a "cheeky old bastard", either singly or in any combination. And believe me, I'm laughing my ass off over it! I actually had to look up cheeky..."offensively bold". Then I laughed even harder. I guess it's a terrific compliment, at least that's the way I'm taking it I didn't mean to schathe your Greenian sensibilities though, as you know my affinity for his style is without question. But nothing made me crack up as much as the "conga line" bit...thank you, and welcome back from your vaca.Nicator

[Paralus]

Definitely a compliment mate! Got to be going well to be called an "old bastard" - cheeky or no!Not surprising in a land where mother becomes "The Old Girl" and father "The Old Boy".I myself am planning to open a "beer window" (a euphemism for a drink) at the bar with few other old bastards at work's end (in a couple of hours). Given it's in the mid thirties (centigrade - near enough to a century F) I'll treat a few frosty porticles of p*ss as did Alexander the Persians!Paralus.

[Paralus]

Definitely a compliment mate! Got to be going well to be called an "old bastard" - cheeky or no!Not surprising in a land where mother becomes "The Old Girl" and father "The Old Boy".I myself am planning to open a "beer window" (a euphemism for a drink) at the bar with few other old bastards at work's end (in a couple of hours). Given it's in the mid thirties (centigrade - near enough to a century F) I'll treat a few frosty porticles of p*ss as did Alexander the Persians!Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Bob,If you've not read it, might I suggest Cartlege's recent (2004) "Alexander The great"? I found this an excellent recent summation on Alexander historiography and one that is immensely readable. In relation to the Philotas murder, Cartelege is unequivocal. Peter Green's review (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041115&s=green111504 ) in "The New Republic" notes the following:"Cartledge also concedes the possibility, on the cui bono principle, that Alexander and Olympias were involved in Philip's too-convenient assassination, shortly before he--and not Alexander--was due to set out to conquer Achaemenid Persia. He rightly supports Badian's thesis that Alexander's refusal to employ Greek ships or troops on what was supposedly a Panhellenic expedition was because he could not trust them. He sees that a major factor in the conqueror's brilliant but ruthless career was the determination to rid himself of the competition in power represented by Philip's old general Parmenio, his son Philotas, and their network of appointees: thus Philotas's rigged trial for conspiracy, Cartledge argues, was "judicial murder," while Parmenio's end was "undisguised assassination." Right on both counts." "Judicial murder" and "undisguised assassination." Always best to call things for what they are.Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Bob,If you've not read it, might I suggest Cartlege's recent (2004) "Alexander The great"? I found this an excellent recent summation on Alexander historiography and one that is immensely readable. In relation to the Philotas murder, Cartelege is unequivocal. Peter Green's review (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041115&s=green111504 ) in "The New Republic" notes the following:"Cartledge also concedes the possibility, on the cui bono principle, that Alexander and Olympias were involved in Philip's too-convenient assassination, shortly before he--and not Alexander--was due to set out to conquer Achaemenid Persia. He rightly supports Badian's thesis that Alexander's refusal to employ Greek ships or troops on what was supposedly a Panhellenic expedition was because he could not trust them. He sees that a major factor in the conqueror's brilliant but ruthless career was the determination to rid himself of the competition in power represented by Philip's old general Parmenio, his son Philotas, and their network of appointees: thus Philotas's rigged trial for conspiracy, Cartledge argues, was "judicial murder," while Parmenio's end was "undisguised assassination." Right on both counts." "Judicial murder" and "undisguised assassination." Always best to call things for what they are.Paralus.