Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???

[Taphoi]

At the risk of opening up another dispute, which I don't plan to pursue: Arrhidaeus had to be acknowledged as Philip's son to be useful as a political pawn, e.g. as a bridegroom for Pixodarus' daughter. You see what I mean - everything makes sense in surprising ways when you believe the ancient evidence and ignore modern speculation.

[marcus]

There is no dispute that Ptolemy was the adoptive son of Lagos. He had no other acknowledged father, so Arrian and others are perfectly correct to call him Ptolemy the son of Lagos. This is not relevant to the issue of Ptolemy's natural parentage.

I don't disagree that it would be 'correct' even if Lagos were merely his adoptive father, Andrew; but sorry, it does not follow that Arrian et al cannot be assigning him to his real father.

ATB

[Taphoi]

I don't disagree, Marcus. I am saying that Arrian et al could mean adoptive son or true son and therefore it is not evidence in favour of either, so is not relevant to the argument.

[Aspasia]

Marcus....Next time, prepare your lesson drawing on the MANY parallels of your current topic...with ALEXANDER!!! Then being on the forum would constitue research

OK- Could someone kindly write me up a list of all relevent Ancient references in relation to this topic!!! And anything on social mores of the time of Philip and Alexander re familial ties and their accepted status in society.

Even the ancient texts written well after Alexander, would have been selective in picking their info and writing it up in a context to suit their current norms. And we also interpret history based on our social norms eg relationship between Alex and Hephaestion!!

But a good source on social norms of Alex's time would really help me. I hope, since there were so many changes occuring at that time-thanks to Philip-I'm sure he made up his own rules anyway!!

[Paralus]

My point is that ALL the ancient commentators that discuss the matter of Ptolemy's birth suggest that he was a bastard and that it was believed that he was Philip's bastard. No ancient commentator argues that it was a fiction. They all imply that it was instead the general belief.

They all do not imply that it was the general belief. As has been pointed out, Arrian does not raise it. But, we shall at a whim, ignore him.

My problem remains that you are re-writing history on the basis of no evidence and in doing so you are rejecting the thrust of all the ancient evidence..

Refer the above GÇô unless we are still ignoring the source.

At the risk of opening up another dispute, which I don't plan to pursue: Arrhidaeus had to be acknowledged as Philip's son to be useful as a political pawn, e.g. as a bridegroom for Pixodarus' daughter.

As I have stated on another thread on this matter, this story, I believe GÇô along with another re-writer of history, N Hammond, is just that: a story. Fancy Philip - the sonGÇôin-law of two or more "barbarians" lecturing Alexander on becoming the same. But then, he must have been used in other political chess games? Surely some other important intrigue validated Philip opening up his life's work to "terrible political instabilityGǪ" by acknowledging that his "possessions and domains" were a legitimate thing for Arrhidaeus to covet?

I don't disagree, Marcus. I am saying that Arrian et al could mean adoptive son or true son and therefore it is not evidence in favour of either, so is not relevant to the argument.

Ah, the argument from silence. Much favoured by Erich Von Daniken. Arrian does not say he wasn't a bastard or the son of Philip, nor does he not say that he was adopted by Lagos, so therefore he is.

One thing Arrian is very good at (aside from patting himself on the back over his literary abilities) is names. In fact were it not for his assiduous assignation of lineage to names, we would be left forever figuring out which Philip, Ptolemy, Clietus, etc he is referring to. Yet, in all this he does claim Ptolemy as "adoptive son of Lagos".

[amyntoros]

Further to the discussion on this forum, there's an examination of this question on the following website (scroll down to Note 3):

Ptolemy I

The part that most caught my eye is that Diodorus never refers to the Ptolemy/Philip relationship when discussing Ptolemy's engagement to Cleopatra, who would have been his half-sister if it were true. I think the engagement would have caused some considerable consternation amongst the still traditional Macedonians if it was "common knowledge" at that time that Ptolemy was Philip's son.

Best regards,

[ruthaki]

To put in my two-bits worth: given Philip's track record (all the wives, concubines, and who know who else) I wouldn't doubt it...

[Taphoi]

Just in case anyone doesn't know, it is a matter of historical fact that Ptolemy's son, Philadelphus, married his full sister, so it isn't all that surprising or shocking that Ptolemy contemplated marrying a woman who was thought to be his half-sister. The entire Ptolemaic dynasty embraced the Egyptian tradition of Pharaonic incest with great enthusiasm. It would be plausible to argue that Ptolemy's plans to wed Cleopatra help to explain how Philadelphus felt he could legitimately adopt the incestuous tradition.

[amyntoros]

Sorry, Andrew, but I think you are now r-e-a-l-l-y trying to stretch facts to fit your theory. Because a son does something, we should accept that the father would have done so also? That doesn't follow. As Pharoah, Philadelphus had no need to legitimize this relationship - certainly not to the Egyptians. And as for the Greeks, if they had a problem with it I doubt they would have viewed his father's failed engagement to a supposed half-sister as any kind of vindication for Philadelphus' own behavior.

And your reasoning still doesn't explain why Diodorus failed to comment on a potentially incestuous relationship at a time when he would have been discussing earlier Macedonian and not Egyptian sensibilities.

Afraid this just won't fly . . .

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Diodorus was probably using Hieronymus of Cardia as his source for this part of his history. Hieronymus probably published at the time that Ptolemy was the most powerful king in the world. It is therefore hardly surprising if he was careful to avoid calling Ptolemy the son of a whore!

[Paralus]

Just in case anyone doesn't know, it is a matter of historical fact that Ptolemy's son, Philadelphus, married his full sister, so it isn't all that surprising or shocking that Ptolemy contemplated marrying a woman who was thought to be his half-sister.

Philadelphus and the following Ptolemy's did indeed practise incest in the grand old tradition of the Egyptian Pharaohs. That does not, as matter of course, imply this was Soter I's reasoning behind the intriguing for Alexander's sisters hand. Viewed through the politics of the time, Egyptian mores are not what Ptolemy is courting here. Argaead legitimacy is.

There are compelling and well reasoned arguments to directly associate Ptolemy with the fictitious Alexander will and testament, the Liber de Morte. It has further been argued (quite convincingly by Bosworth) that the publication date for this is post the peace of the dynasts GÇô sometime in 309/8. Funnily enough, the will decrees Ptolemy marry Alexander's sister Cleopatra (and Ptolemy's supposed half sister).

It is at this time that Ptolemy's power is at its zenith GÇô gains in Greece proper, Antigonus forced to negotiate and the largest fleet in the Aegean. For one to intrigue for the Basileus Macedon one thing remained: Argead legitimacy. Hence Cleopatra. At this time, none of the rival dynasts had assumed the diadem and such dynastic ties were the currency of legitimacy among the Macedonians.

Hieronymus probably published at the time that Ptolemy was the most powerful king in the world. It is therefore hardly surprising if he was careful to avoid calling Ptolemy the son of a whore!

I don't think anyone doubts that books 18-20 in Diodorus owe much (if not virtually all) to Hieronymus . Hieronymus served with Eumenes until taking service under Antigonus after Gabiene in 316. He remained in Antigonid service until his death (apparently at the Isocratean age of 102) GÇô at least until Gonatus' time.

As I've already stated above, Ptolemy was at his strongest immediately post 312. this lasted until his serious reverse at Ipsus in 301. Thereafter GÇô the normal Coele-Syrian and occasional Aegean excursions aside GÇô the Ptolemys remained resolutely Egypt focussed.

Your statement would therefore claim that Hieronymus published between 312-301. I'd love to see the evidence of that claim. Are you suggesting that a work ( which ostensibly ran from Alexander's death to Pyrrhus) was published piecemeal? It is far more likely that the work of collating and organising a manuscript began during his time as harmost for Thebes beginning 293).

I doubt that avoidance of offence to the "most powerful king in the world" (which during the early third century was - unarguably - Seleucus not Ptolemy ) had any effect upon his writings. As a captain/general under first Eumenes and then Antigonus/Demetrius, he can hardly have been concerned that his words may offend more than his actions already had.

[Taphoi]

Ptolemy wasn't at Ipsus. He controlled lots of areas as well as Egypt - the islands, for example and Cyrene. Of course Hieronymus wrote in the early third century BC - I didn't say otherwise. Ptolemy was far richer than Seleucus to judge by the surviving magnitudes of their coinages.

To get back to the thread, it should also be noted that Cleopatra had previously been married to her uncle, Alexander of Epirus, and also borne him children. It is anachronistic to see anything odd in a planned marriage to her half-brother.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Ptolemy wasn't at Ipsus. He controlled lots of areas as well as Egypt - the islands, for example and Cyrene. Of course Hieronymus wrote in the early third century BC - I didn't say otherwise. Ptolemy was far richer than Seleucus to judge by the surviving magnitudes of their coinages.

G'day Andrew.

Ptolemaic forces definitely were part of that coalition and invaded (then) Antigonid Syria. That he had "evacuated" Syria prior to Antigonid forces being defeated at Ipsus ("gutoed out" in the Australian vernacular) resulted in Seleucus as the dynast who achieved most from the result: Syria.

I stand by the view that Ptolemy was the most powerful of the dynasts after enforcing the Peace of the Dynasts in 312/11. That power waned from 306 onwards as Seleucus' steadily grew GÇô in the end seeing Keraunos assassinate him after Corupedium. Regardless of the relative monetary "worth" of either camp it is a fact that the zenith of Ptolemaic power was past and indeed went into reverse following the defeat of Antigonid forces. It is also highly likely that Hieronymus was with those Antigonid forces.

Ptolemy indeed did have several Aegean Islands and Cyrene. He proceeded to bleed those Islands, beginning with the serious reverse in the naval battle of Salamis in 306. After that, his gains in Greece
too bled away (except for Corinth or Megara GÇô can't remember which) and, more importantly, was in no position (after Ipsus) to resist the ceding of control of Syria to Seleucus. Not something the most "powerful king in the world" would be likely to do. In fact in terms of Ptolemaic policy, a serious reversal. His successors in Egypt would remain fixated on Coele-Syria right down to Raphia and beyond.

I still find it hard to agree that Hieronymus felt any need to placate the Egyptian king at all. If anything, the light in which he paints his Antigonid patrons (and Eumenes) may possibly be "placatory" or soft.

The Marriage of Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus was a typical piece of Philipic (a new term?!) diplomacy. Having turfed the king, Arymbas (his cousin) and placed Alexander on the throne, Philip (substantially later) then repudiated Olympias and to quell the drums of revenge and war, cemented an alliance by the marriage. I do not believe this was in any way the normal way things would be done. Phillip GÇô with Alexader the Great in Illyria and Olympias agitating for war GÇô had very little choice.

Does anyone know of any other Macedonian (not Egyptian GÇô Ptolmaic) king or pretender marrying a sister to claim the throne?

[amyntoros]

To get back to the thread, it should also be noted that Cleopatra had previously been married to her uncle, Alexander of Epirus, and also borne him children. It is anachronistic to see anything odd in a planned marriage to her half-brother.

Hardly anachronistic. Just because uncle/niece unions were fairly common it would be backwards-logic to claim that all other types of incestuous relationships were therefore considered acceptable by the Macedonians at that time. ( Please let's disregard later events in Egypt for they are not sufficiently relevant.) Do you know of any other sibling marriages amongst the Greeks or Macedonians prior to Ptolemy's proposed engagement?

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Zeus & Hera