I’m a long way behind events – in this thread anyway – with far too many “Companions” and two too many symposia. The most recent of which was away in the “Eprirus” of the western marches of Sydney with the none-too fearful spousal matriarch and sister-in-law. Thank the gods my son returned with me and that there seemingly are no dynastic upheavals.
Perhaps it’s best I just sort of start again and have a run at the whole scenario. If it rambles, apologies in advance: it is not necessarily planned and I’ve a badgering son wishing to play “Runescape”.
We seem to have a number of things on the go: Caesar and Pompey are father and son just like Philip and Alexander; Pauasanias’ murder of Philip indicating Philip was unpopular; Hermolaus as untrustworthy teenager; The happiness or otherwise of the Macedones and their aristocracy with Alexander – especially over the last years and the murder of Clietus (and others). I may have missed some but I’d think that sums it up. I’ll have a shot – not necessarily in order.
The first, that Trogus was writing about Caesar and Pompey who “were father and son” like Philip and Alexander is, I think, dead letter. The evidence to float it is as strong as that floating the various Atlantis theories.
On Pausanias I’m more in the Aristotlean camp: he acted of his own accord based on his personal motives. That does not say he acted
alone. He had “good reason to knock-off Philip”: he’d been raped repeatedly by Attalus’ muleteers and, ostensibly, Attalus and his guests. He sought a hearing and redress from the king, something all Macedones have the right to and was “patted on the head” and sent on his way. He was festering.
I further believe that Olympias, though over the moon with the results, did not plan it. She was (most likely) in Epirus. Were she to have planned it one might assume that the Epirotes will have been in a position to press her claims (her son) – possibly some of those Illyrians too that he will have visited – just on which, I am with Hammond on that wandering:
"…such freedom of movement was possible only with the permission of Philip and, it was no doubt with Philip’s approval that Alexander returned to Pella, probably late in 337." (
Philip of Macedon). We have no indication of that. Indeed, what we do have is a ready at the steering wheel Antipater. Although inevitably looking back through the prism of later events, those two present as an unlikely alliance. To my reading, the only political alliance that could succeed here was one behind the usurped Amyntas (the son of Perdiccas). Again, should that have been the case we might have expected those supporters to be in evidence once they’d achieved the removal of the usurper (Philip). It is instructive that they are all removed without much further ado. A poorly executed (pardon the pun) coup.
I’ve likely written most of what I’ve to say about Clietus. In the end it comes down to the speeches in the sources and how and why they are used. If they are to be consigned to anti Caligula rhetoric and personal barrow pushing then we need to ignore them for this and –
a fortiori – for Alexander’s exhortation of his men (calling them by name); his “conversations” with Parmenio and his prayer at Opis – that “brotherhood of man” fusion speech as well as others. They serve, like those in Thucydides and others, to illustrate a point. The fact is that although the sources all retail different details with respect to what was said prior to the murder, they all agree on two points: the fact that the flattery of Alexander (which raised the ire of the “older” Macedonians) disowned Philip as his father and that the Macedonian successes were all down his generalship (the Macedonian disaster against Spitamenes and the generals who died there being the direct example). Clietus becomes the “spokesman” for this resentment. It will not simply have been generated by this symposium in isolation. The incident highlights Macedonian resentment at the orientalising habits of Alexander and the sedulous flattery he seemingly was happy to entertain. The words need not be exact.
Marcus and Amyntoros have addressed the Hermolaus issue in large part. Obviously regicide is not being “justified” here. Reasons for such are being expounded. It is difficult to believe that there was anything in this for the other pages if we are to assume that the sole reason was Hermolaus’ flogging. Other pages are unlikely to court death because one has been – in the Macedonian tradition – dealt with by the king. These young men were in close contact with the king – they did, after all, guard his person. They essentially “lived” with him and, as such, will have been privy to more, one might suggest, than the sources feel obliged to record. Again, we can dismiss as spurious the words that Hermolaus utters even though nothing he was going to say would change his fate, but I would argue that his words are indicative of the feeling amongst not only a section of the school of Pages but also the Macedonians themselves. To quote Bosworth:
It is unlikely that the affront to Hermolaus’ amour proper was enough to motivate all the conspirators, and the wider grounds of discontent adumbrated in the vulgate tradition have something in their favour. The growing despotism of the court may have alienated the younger members of the nobility as much as it did their seniors, and the recent attempt to introduce proskynesiss could have served as catalyst to their disaffection. Conquest and Empire
Either way, I agree with you Karen that Callisthenes was not actively involved in the plot other than that his views were used. One might have suggested that one or more of the pages will have dobbed him in outright. Ditto Alexander’s “involvement" in his father’s death: the “conspirators” there (sons of Aeropus) would surely have put him in it.
karen wrote:I don't interpret the cancellation of the last plans and the abandonment of the marriages as disagreement with them in principle, or a testament to Alexander's bad character. I think the plans were more likely seen as something only he could have pulled off, and besides now there was this other little matter to attend to <steely sound of long knives being loosened in sheathes. Re the marriages, I doubt Alexander forced his nobles to take them; more likely he inspired them with his dream of merging the two nobilities -- but once he was dead, everyone figured that dream was dead with him, and it was return to former reality.
Certainly the abandonment was at the urging of Perdiccas. He had no wish to go galloping off to Arabia whilst his empire was in turmoil. He needed time to consolidate. The total abandonment amounts to a complete repudiation in any case though. Ditto the marriages. The only concrete evidence for one surviving is that of Seleucus (possibly Eumenes). All the others were ditched in a haste only bettered by the occasional Hollywood celebrity. They too were repudiated utterly and by association, their sponsor Alexander.
The final eloquent word goes to the rank and file. In a complete repudiation of the “fusion of the ruling class” ideal, they rebelled in Babylon and chose as King a half-wit, half brother Argaed over the child of Alexander. They weren’t about to have a half Asian/Macedonian as king. That they lost both the subsequent fight and several heads in the resultant purge in no way lessens the impact of their rejection of Alexander’s half-caste offspring.
), but rather as the politics of the west quickly played out, the repudiations happened because of the needed alliances between Antipater's, Ptolemy's and Lysimachus's camps and Seleucus' as well. Even Perdiccas' next marriage or marriages were part of that dynastic struggle. Again a daughter of Antipater, Nicaea (who later married Lysimachus) and then Kleopatra (who then gets knocked off by Antigonas because she is going to marry Ptolemy).
Did the narrative flow from a revisionist viewpoint?