pothos.org

Interesting idea, Karen, which I hadn't really considered before - that Alexander's strength/power/security was such that it actually made him more paranoid that he would otherwise have been. I'm no psychologist, but it makes a funny kind of sense. It certainly means that Philip has a bigger stick to beat him with.

A sort of case of "the stronger your position, the weaker it is".

Now that *is* Byzantine!

ATB

Well, the more you have, the more you have to lose

I think though that Alexander's fear at that time didn't come from his own power or greatness per se, but from Philip's reaction to it -- and at later times, from other people's reactions to it. But that's an occupational hazard of power -- being feared, envied and resented by others... or endangered even by those who simply disagree with your approach, strongly enough that they figure it would be best to knock you off...

Warmly,
Karen

Really when you think of it Alexander was acting very impulsively over that affair. I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere I read that the girl was very young - younger than a teen-ager, so it seems likely to me that Philip was 'fixing' a marriage to his mentally challenged son Arridaios that would be suitable and non-threatening to Alexander. Obviously father and son (P & A) were bitterly estranged for it to have all escalated the way it did.

I've been reading these posts with interest while musing on a "what if" of my own. The problem is . . . every time I think I have an answer I find a gaping hole. But try this for size. What if Arrhidaeus was NOT weak-minded?

This would certainly have made the proposed marriage more of a threat. Elizabeth Carney brings the marriage of Cynnane and Amyntas into the historical equation, proposing that it also occurred in the last year and a half of Philip's reign and was part of Philip's plan to produce create more Argeads, should they be needed - something of even greater importance if he intended to take both his sons and Amyntas with him on the Persian campaign. Carney says, "he (Alexander) may have taken them (the marriages) as a warning from Philip that other heirs were possible. . . . As with Arrhidaeus' projected marriage, the marriage to Cynnane was the first public recognition that Philip had given Amyntas . . . Alexander and his mother may have seen both projected marriages as indications that his position in the succession was jeopardized, particularly because we hear of no such arrangements for him. They may have been right."

I'll add another thought. At this point, would a weak-minded son be a consideration in dynastic plans, especially as there were still other ways to secure heirs?

This begs the question, if Arrhidaeus was not weak-minded, why does Alexander say this in his so-called letter to Pixodarus? There's another part of this letter that doesn't ring true- that Arrhidaeus was illegitimate. While some sources call Arrhidaeus' mother a common woman or a dancing girl and a whore, Athenaeus (13.557b-e), quoting Satyrus' Life of Philip II, lists Arrhidaeus' mother amongst the wives of Philip, married along with another Thessalian woman because Philip was "wishing to govern the Thessalian nation as well. As Carney points out "it is difficult to see why sleeping with a Thessalian whore would have endeared Philip to the Thessalians, whom he certainly wanted to conciliate. . . ." From my point of view, it's equally difficult to see why offering in marriage the bastard child of a whore would have been an enticement to Pixodarus in a political union. We read that the Persians had spies everywhere - they could not have been in the dark about events in Macedonia. Pixodarus would surely have known any gossip about Arrhidaeus and not needed a letter from Alexander to tell him.

So . . . taking the stance that the part in Alexander's letter about Arrhidaeus' illegitimacy isn't true, then the claim that Arrhidaeus was weak-minded may not have veracity either and the whole of Alexander's letter becomes suspect. I find it difficult to believe that Alexander was stupid enough to invent these claims about Arrhidaeus in order to further his own desires. He may indeed have written to Pixodarus, but surely not in this manner? Could it be that the contents were never revealed and the letter as we know it is another post facto fake? The authenticity of other letters quoted in Plutarch has been questioned. Why is this one accepted as genuine?

If you're following me so far, then we must ask why Alexander didn't have Arrhidaeus killed (a subject already brought up in this thread) if he was a real threat to Alexander's claim to the throne. What if Alexander had him imprisoned instead? There's a prevailing assumption that because Arrhidaeus was in Babylon after Alexander's death, then he accompanied Alexander on his eastern campaign. That is not necessarily so. It would have been too dangerous to leave him in Macedonia, but he could have been kept close until Alexander defeated Darius and then imprisoned in any number of Eastern cities. The royal women were kept at Susa with a presumably large enough Macedonian presence to protect them - Arrhidaeus could easily have been left there as well, or in Babylon itself, for that matter. If you don't think that likely, consider that he could have accompanied Alexander, but as a prisoner, much the same as Alexander Lyncestes. And, even if the circumstances of Arrhidaeus' confinement were not as harsh as those of Alexander Lyncestes (whose imprisonment had reduced him to a state where he could not even speak for his own defense), ten years in solitary custody could certainly have "addled" Arrhidaeus' brain, changing his personality to the one we know from the history books. Furthermore, that same 10 years of custody might explain why the army did not immediately acclaim Arrhidaeus as sole regent. If their beloved Alexander had had him imprisoned for most of his adult life, I think it would have been enough to discourage the rank and file from acknowledging Arrhidaeus as a true and capable leader, while it not being problematical for them to accept him as a symbolic representative of the Argead dynasty. And btw, if the claims about Arrhidaeus' mother were true (or even said at this point in time), I doubt the army would have accepted him in *any* capacity - just as with Barsine's son.

Enough already. Pothosians, please go ahead and pick holes in this hypothesis as I'm tired of arguing with myself (though that doesn't mean that I won't argue with you)!

Best regards,[/b]

Interesting idea. My first thought is that this calls for a careful examination of any and all evidence of Alexander & Arrhidaios's relative ages. Because if Arrhidaios was competent, and older, he would have had the nod as heir right from the start, rather than Alexander. (And history might have been very different!)

Second thought: Arrhidaios was certainly not as militarily capable as Alexander, in Philip's opinion (which I think we can trust) -- else he'd have been given a prominent command at Chaironea as well. (Obviously Philip believed in on-the-job training for sons.) We don't hear of any military exploits of his at all.

Third thought: I think that if Arrhidaios had been competent, Philip would have raised his sons to get along with and support each other. Why? Because family patterns repeat themselves, and Philip worked with and supported his own brothers. If I recall rightly there's no evidence of murderous rivalries between Alexander II, Perdikkas III and Philip II... they just each took the throne in order of birth, and the one who was in power never seemed inclined to knock off a younger brother. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't studied this in great depth.) Now they were all the sons of one mother, it's true, so they didn't have maternal rivalries motivating them. However -- do we have any evidence of Alexander calculatedly killing or imprisoning anyone, relative or not, without there being some sort of evidence of disloyalty on their part? Attalos had publicly called Alexander illegitimate; Amyntas was interested enough in being king himself that he'd signed himself as such at some sacred place (I read this somewhere, and now I can't remember -- Eleusis?); Alexander Lynkestes had been fingered either via Sisines or by Olympias, depending on who you believe; there was some sort of investigation that determined that his two brothers were involved with Philip's death. Whether the evidence is true or not, it's there, which means that if it's not true, Alexander or someone else felt it necessary to fabricate it. Surely that would have been the case with Arrhidaios, if Alexander did indeed hold him prisoner for all that time? Imprisonment itself seems rather a significant fact for the sources to leave out.

These are my immediate thoughts, at least.

karen wrote:. . .if Arrhidaios was competent, and older, he would have had the nod as heir right from the start, rather than Alexander.

Quick answers off the top of my head.

(1) Carney estimates the marriage to Arrhidaeus' mother as being between 358 and 357, so if Arrhidaeus was older than Alexander it wouldn't have been by much. And as Philip's reign gives us the first real evidence of multiple polygamous marriages, it's impossible to tell whether age would have been the major factor in the choice for a successor. If Arrhidaeus and Alexander were so close in age, Arrhidaeus need not have been incompetent to be passed over. Alexander's precociousness, intelligence, ambition, bravery, ability in battle GÇô all these would have marked him as an obvious choice. Arrhidaeus could have been merely average and he would have been easily outshone by Alexander's rising star. OTH, many tend to assume that Philip had told Alexander he would inherit the kingdom, yet there's no evidence of this. He certainly treated Alexander as if he was grooming him for the throne, but there was no "crown prince" per se.

Arrhidaios was certainly not as militarily capable as Alexander, in Philip's opinion (which I think we can trust) -- else he'd have been given a prominent command at Chaironea as well.

Yes, this would have marked Arrhidaeus as a second choice, but that defect alone doesn't mean he was weak-minded, nor does it mean that Alexander wasn't threatened by him. Also, although we are not told of Arrhidaeus in battle, it doesn't mean that he never fought alongside Philip. For instance, we don't hear about Philotas (who was obviously capable) until the Thebans demanded that he be surrendered to them! In fact, we have relatively few details of any of Philip's battles with the exception of Chaironea, and we only know about that one because of Alexander. (Aside: I would love to know more about the campaign against the Ilyrians where Cynanne fought alongside her father!)

I think that if Arrhidaios had been competent, Philip would have raised his sons to get along with and support each other. Why? Because family patterns repeat themselves, and Philip worked with and supported his own brothers.

Karen, I really don't know whether Philip would have encouraged his sons to support each other, and I can't see that family patterns would or even could repeat themselves. In Philip's family there were three brothers with the same mother, while Alexander's family was like nothing we have ever known. The dynamics of polygamy, the culture, the politics, and the ambitions of both mothers and sons - all these must have played a significant role in family relationships and I'm not sure that I could ever properly relate to them or fully understand them.

. . . do we have any evidence of Alexander calculatedly killing or imprisoning anyone, relative or not, without there being some sort of evidence of disloyalty on their part?

No, but did Alexander have good reason to kill the people you listed in your post, or were they merely good excuses? It's awfully convenient that no one remained as a possible contender for the throne, with the exception of Arrhidaeus. You seem to be agreeing with me when you say Whether the evidence is true or not, it's there, which means that if it's not true, Alexander or someone else felt it necessary to fabricate it. So perhaps there wasn't a good enough reason/excuse to be found to justify the elimination of Arrhidaeus, or perhaps he wasn't considered a significant threat immediately after Alexander attained command? However, Alexander might not have wanted him to remain free and able to gather friends and support in the future, or to be used by anyone who had an intent to conspire against Alexander. As for there being no record of Arrhidaeus' imprisonment (it could also be thought of as protective custody) - well, there's little record at all of Arrhidaeus until after Alexander's death. I think it likely that had he been with the army, Ptolemy or Aristobulus would have made some mention of him, whilst if he was left in Babylon or Susa, they would have had little knowledge of his true circumstances.

That's it for today.

All the best,

Very quick post, because I'm about to go off to the rubbish tip (ah, the joys of Easter Saturday) ...

He certainly treated Alexander as if he was grooming him for the throne, but there was no GÇ£crown princeGÇ¥ per se.

This is a good point. I suppose that, in view of Alexander's stint as regent, and his position at Chaeronea, it is perfectly legitimate to call him "crown prince"; but, as you say, that is with the benefit of a healthy dose of hindsight.

On the other hand, of course, I'm sure that Antipater, Parmenion, etc. would have looked at the positions of trust that Philip gave to Alexander and thought along exactly the same lines!

ATB

A different spin on the Pixodarus may be as follows. Negotiations for the marriage between Arrhidaeus and Ada II probably took place during AlexanderGÇÖs estranged absence from the Argead court. The importance of this proposed marriage alliance is not AlexanderGÇÖs meddling behaviour but rather his fatherGÇÖs readiness to allow someone else to step up to the position he normally performed himself.

In his forties, and having just married the Macedonian born Cleopatra, his political as well as sexual prowess can hardly be questioned, so why not marry Ada? The sources suggest he was in love! That may well be the case, but hardly enough to prevent perhaps the most significant political alliance to date in PhilipGÇÖs career.

The answer may be; the status that Ada II would have attained in Macedon would have her standing as no more than a concubine or a wife of secondary importance. Such a position whilst acceptable for Philips other barbarous wives, can hardly be acceptable for the Carian princess GÇô particularly given what we know of Hecatomnid women historically and the roles played by them in their kingdoms affairs.

The securing of such an important political and economic alliance could be concluded else wise GÇô through the marriage to Arrhidaeus. Arrhidaeus was a suitable substitute GÇô and the often attempted accounts to discredit his significance in the affairs of Macedon are often over done, in my opinion. He carried the Argead genes, and a child fathered by him was no doubt a runner for the title of King. Alexander would have considered such a marriage a threat to his position GÇô given that his stepbrother now, not only an Argead - would also be empowered with the political and economic support of Caria GÇô hardly something to be sneezed at, given that some time in the future, the throne of Macedon would be contested.

Some things to remember regarding Arrhidaeus are; the proposed marriage to Ada was aborted due to AlexanderGÇÖs efforts. We find that at the mass weddings at Susa, Arrhidaeus appears not to have received a wife?, Arrhidaeus did become king of Macedon. Arrhidaeus did end up marrying. I donGÇÖt have time to expand at the moment GÇô running off to work. It may have been simple enough to get rid of him but Alexander chose not too. This may be due to the often underestimated position held by Arrhidaeus and his important role in Thessalian affairs.

Finally, how could Alexander expect to get away with it? He was more than likely banking on the notion that such a marriage was too important to Macedon for Philip to over-react. But over-react he did. Why? This marriage although greatly beneficial to Macedon GÇô was aborted all together Such a political alliance was far too dangerous at the hands of someone like Alexander. The supposed speech of PhilipGÇÖs to Alexander that Al was deserving of a bride of higher standing is nonsense. What other females at that time could have had the standing of Ada II? To suggest a Persian princess GÇô I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves.

Running, really, really late for work
Cheers!

Another interesting theory, Smitty. But don't you think that your hypothesis still allows for my theory that Arrhidaeus was not weak-minded, and that he could have been held in some kind of "protective custody" during the Persian campaign?

Best regards,

I don't think Smitty's hypothesis precludes a 'normal' Arrhidaeus.

I have to say, however, that I find it very hard to believe that he would not be mentioned at all during the campaign, prior to 323BC, were he in a 'normal' state. What's the story, eh?

ATB

I have a long reply coming to Amyntoros, but I'm curious -- Smitty -- where do the sources say that Philip was in love with Ada II? (And in fact, from whence do we know that that was her name?)

Warmly,
Karen

Out of the question.If Arrhidaios was not weak minded that would be well known.Firstly,if he was younger than Alexander then he wouldnt have had a claim to the throne, which he hadnt.And if he was not weak minded and didnt have a claim to the throne then why Alexander didnt use him in his campaign?He was the closest relative,apart from Ptolemy who was said to be his half brother.And if Arrhidaios was not weak minded he could not be restricted easily.He would find a way to claim the throne.

Also, there is no way that he would be along with the campaign and not weak minded,because there would be a report from someone about this.It isnt that easy to keep someone in a cell (a tent?) without the whole army knowing who he is.Especially if he was not weak minded.He would have tore the camp apart with his yells.

If on the other hand Arrhidaios was older than Alexander and not weak minded then he would have legitimately claimed the throne,with Philip's conscent.

The most probable is that Arrhidaios was maybe older than Alexander (1-2-3 months),and that's why Olympias tried to poison him.And afterwards that he became weak minded he could not claim the throne anymore, and Philip would want Alexander to be King.

Efstathios wrote:If on the other hand Arrhidaios was older than Alexander and not weak minded then he would have legitimately claimed the throne,with Philip's conscent.

Yes, but that theory is predicated on a first-born traditionally inheriting the throne. We don't know that this was the case during Philip's reign. Philip's many marriages created a royal family dynamic that was the first of its kind. He was a man unto himself who changed the face of warfare and changed the face of Macedonia during his reign. I firmly believe he would have made any decision based upon who was the best for the job, not who was the eldest.

Add to that the fact that if it WAS expected for the first-born to inherit, we would have been told this in the histories- the succession to the throne would never have been in doubt. If Arrhidaios was the first-born and expected to become king, we would know about it. If it were Alexander, there would have been no need for him to question his status and/or his relationship with Philip. No need for the army to proclaim him king. No need for his friends to rally round and support him after Philip's death. Indeed, no reason for Attalus' insulting speech at Philip's wedding if Alexander's succession was secure.

As I said before - there was no Crown Prince. And there was no Queen either.

Best regards,

I somehow struggle to accept Arrhidaeus was mentally deficient. I think one of the descriptions given in the sources refers to him as 'simple minded'. What 'simple minded' meant in the fourth century BC is anyone's guess.

Accepting that the sources reflect some element of truth we need weigh up two opposing positions held on ArrhidaeusGÇÖ simple mindedness. On the one account, references regarding his mental capacity always seem to reflect the position held by the people in power - the nobility. An opposing picture is inferred from the actions of the commoner - the soldiers. It seems rather peculiar that the rank and file would acclaim a simpleton as their new King.

Furthermore, it should be noted, Arrhidaeus was done away not by any of the successors but by his step-mother Olympias and that proved to be her undoing as well. However we look at it, as far as the Macedonians were concerned, he was their king, and having lasted several years, was not such a bad king, given the peoples response.

As to why we don't hear of Arrhidaeus prior to 323 BC is not surprising. I doubt he was kept under lock and key or some sort of confinement. The only time he was a real threat to ATG was at his accession to the throne - and the need to keep the Thessalians in line was probably more important than doing away with his step-brother. It would hardly be in the interest of ATG to have stories circulating about his step-brother on expedition, regardless of whether he participated in battle or not. In some sense this can be noted by the limited references to ATGGÇÖs father Philip II. I suspect he was there on campaign, contributing in some way or another - but posing no real threat to Alexander. I doubt if anyone could compete with the status Alexander achieved in his life time - and as can be seen by through the successors - nor could they compete with him when he was dead.

Karen, my earlier point stating Philip II was in love, did not infer he was in love with Ada II, rather the sources say he married Cleopatra due to love.

The only reference to PixodarusGÇÖs daughter being called Ada that I can recall is from Strabo Book xiv under the section on Caria.



Cheers!



p.s Amyntoros, what da ya mean! "another interesting theory" LoL.

bye for now.

Arrhidaios does appear before the succession disputes assisting Alexander during a sacrifice; this does not point to any sort of confinement. The tradition of his simple-mindedness is too consistent to be ignored although the stories of Olympias' responsibility may be viewed with scepticism.

Plutarch mentions his irrational rage in his life of Phocion and we may presume his source to have been contemporary and hostile but there are no positive sources even though Kassander who invaded to help Philip and Eurydike and since they were both safely dead when he became king he would have had an interest in representing them as competant; Aristoboulos wrote at his court yet no trace of a positive tradition suvives

The whole Pixodaros incident is suspect as Arrian does not mention it in his excursus on Carian affairs and does not cite it as the reason for the exile of Alexander's friends.