pothos.org

Paralus wrote:There is, then, no "defended"; only explained.

You thought "excused" too strong?

No, I thought it was the wrong word, as "excuse" would require you to think that Philip made a mistake. Rather, I think you're defending him, and that you truly believe that you're merely "explaining".

the_accursed wrote: No, I thought it was the wrong word, as "excuse" would require you to think that Philip made a mistake. Rather, I think you're defending him, and that you truly believe that you're merely "explaining".

This should give me pause as - given you seem to know what Philip was thinking (as Amyntoros has pointed out) - it is quite possible you know also what I am thinking.

That is very precise semantic surgery. Originally you would to claim that I was excusing an error; now I am "defending" a decision - " however flawed " that decision. Which would imply that said decision was imperfect or unsound.

Neither. I have been constant in an attempt to explain why the heir presumptive was where he was. As have been others. Rather it is you, "arguing from the point of view of what Philip could have known in 338 B.C.", that has attacked a decision that is, from mine and others' point of view, emminently understandable.

Paralus wrote:

the_accursed wrote: No, I thought it was the wrong word, as "excuse" would require you to think that Philip made a mistake. Rather, I think you're defending him, and that you truly believe that you're merely "explaining".

This should give me pause as - given you seem to know what Philip was thinking (as Amyntoros has pointed out) - it is quite possible you know also what I am thinking.

I have claimed neither to know what Philip was thinking (now you're just being ridiculous) or that we know today everything that Philip knew. What I have said is that the decision should not be judged on the basis of things that that Philip could not possibly have known in 338 B.C. - such as that the battle of Chaeronea would be won, that he would die only two years later, and that Alexander would go on to conquer Persia. I fail to see why this argument is controversial.

I see no reason why Philip could not have waited, and let Alexander fight in the battle without letting him also be a commander. As far as Philip knew, there was still time to let Alexander gain more experience.

That is very precise semantic surgery. Originally you would to claim that I was excusing an error; now I am "defending" a decision - " however flawed " that decision. Which would imply that said decision was imperfect or unsound.

It's an important difference, and one I noted myself, thus my edit. Why am I not surprised, though, that you're still harping on it? And yes, I am implying that the decision was imperfect. Do I believe that you secretly agree with me? No. But I do believe that you would not be defending it, had the king not been Philip, and particularly if the battle had also been lost.

Neither. I have been constant in an attempt to explain why the heir presumptive was where he was. As have been others. Rather it is you, "arguing from the point of view of what Philip could have known in 338 B.C.", that has attacked a decision that is, from mine and others' point of view, emminently understandable.

And in my opinion, it seems "eminently understandable" to you and those who agree with you, mainly because it was Philip who made it, but also because the son was Alexander (though not so much in your case, I would guess) and because the battle was won. That is: apparently, in your opinion, Alexander could not possibly have made a mistake that the generals could not have corrected, and even if he could have, it could not possibly have caused a Macedonian defeat.

And, by the way: "attacked" is an interesting choice of word. Here I was, thinking I was only criticizing a decision Philip made. It's good to know, though, that you're not "defending" - merely "explaining".

the_accursed wrote:And, by the way: "attacked" is an interesting choice of word. Here I was, thinking I was only criticizing a decision Philip made.

Yes, it is isn’t it? That would be because it is the antonym of the word you chose: “defend”.

the_accursed wrote:And in my opinion, it seems "eminently understandable" to you and those who agree with you, mainly because it was Philip who made it, but also because the son was Alexander (though not so much in your case, I would guess) and because the battle was won.

No, not at all - speaking for myself. As you have written: that is your opinion. And, as I wrote before, explaining it all again will make not one whit of difference though.

And, as I wrote before, explaining it all again will make not one whit of difference though.

You're right there. It won't. But not because I'm trying to be difficult, but because I think your argument is flawed. And thus, if you make the same argument again, I will still think it's flawed. It seems though, that to you, the concept of you being wrong is utterly unthinkable, and that I should just accept your posts as the final word on the matter – especially if they're ended with a “convincing” one-liner.

Moderator's note: Unless a quote is wrongly attributed or some such similar situation there is no right or wrong in a debate, only differences of opinion. Members do not usually argue from a position wherein they doubt their own convictions, although sometimes those convictions may be changed by a debate (it has happened to me) and sometimes they may not. In the latter situation members may eventually have to agree to disagree.

All discussions, however, should be about the historical subject and not about the member himself (or herself). I.e., the debates on Pothos should be about Alexander, or Philip, or any other related person or event, etc. They should not include personal remarks addressed to or about the individual posting. This applies to everyone on Pothos which is why I have not included quotes in this post. I am merely taking the opportunity to remind all members that they should courteously debate the subject matter.

Best regards,

the_accursed wrote:I see no reason why Philip could not have waited, and let Alexander fight in the battle without letting him also be a commander.

Again, how about because it was appropriate, or at least was not inappropriate, to the culture we're discussing?

No offense intended, but I simply don't see how this is such a hard subject to grasp. There are plenty of things the Macedonians did that don't lend themselves to the conventional wisdom that comes with 30 or so centuries of "western European" hindsight. All the same, they made sense to a warlike culture whose monarchs, at the very least, were invested in (again, at least) propogating the concepts of heroic lineages and ethos.

I mean, we're talking about monarchs who promoted their immediate bodyguards to the positions of command--and vice versa. Neither occupation seems necessarily suited to the other, right? Or how about storming battlements during sieges to engage in hand-to-hand combat? What about taking part in cavalry charges against superior cavalry numbers?

None of the above make any more sense than letting the 18-year old you're grooming to be king/commander in chief take command of one half of your army. All, however, were part and parcel of the warfighting mentality of the 4th century Argeads. You've stated that Alexander's age should have been an issue in an age, in any culture, but the body of historical evidence simply does not reflect that.

Again, how about because it was appropriate, or at least was not inappropriate, to the culture we're discussing?

No offense intended, but I simply don't see how this is such a hard subject to grasp. There are plenty of things the Macedonians did that don't lend themselves to the conventional wisdom that comes with 30 or so centuries of "western European" hindsight. All the same, they made sense to a warlike culture whose monarchs, at the very least, were invested in (again, at least) propogating the concepts of heroic lineages and ethos.

I mean, we're talking about monarchs who promoted their immediate bodyguards to the positions of command--and vice versa. Neither occupation seems necessarily suited to the other, right? Or how about storming battlements during sieges to engage in hand-to-hand combat? What about taking part in cavalry charges against superior cavalry numbers?

None of the above make any more sense than letting the 18-year old you're grooming to be king/commander in chief take command of one half of your army. All, however, were part and parcel of the warfighting mentality of the 4th century Argeads. You've stated that Alexander's age should have been an issue in an age, in any culture, but the body of historical evidence simply does not reflect that.

Then here’s a question that, had I asked it earlier, perhaps could have saved us (or at least me) a lot of trouble:

What battles of similar magnitude had the ancient Macedonians fought, where equally young and inexperienced princes had commanded, as you put it, “half the army”? That is, what Macedonian precedence are you referring to, that proves that this was just the way things were done, and that Philip had little choice in the matter?

Diodorus (19.29.5 & 19.40.1) discussing Paraetecene (317) and Gabiene (317/6) respectively. Demetrius was born c336.

The first of the horsemen on the right wing adjacent to the phalanx were five hundred mercenaries of mixed origin ... and next to them the thousand known as the Hetairoi with Antigonus' son Demetrius as commander now about to fight in company with his father for the first time.

Antigonus placed his cavalry on the wings, giving command of the left to Pithon and that of the right to his own son Demetrius, beside whom he himself planned to fight.

An eminently Macedonian thing to do.

Paralus wrote:Diodorus (19.29.5 & 19.40.1) discussing Paraetecene (317) and Gabiene (317/6) respectively. Demetrius was born c336.

The first of the horsemen on the right wing adjacent to the phalanx were five hundred mercenaries of mixed origin ... and next to them the thousand known as the Hetairoi with Antigonus' son Demetrius as commander now about to fight in company with his father for the first time.

Antigonus placed his cavalry on the wings, giving command of the left to Pithon and that of the right to his own son Demetrius, beside whom he himself planned to fight.

An eminently Macedonian thing to do.

Thanks, Paralus. And I'm sorry that the discussion between us has been so infected. It always seems to be the case when you and I discuss something.

But I was asking for a precedence. If this was "standard procedure", something every young Macedonian prince had to go through, then there must have been many Macedonian princes before Alexander who, as teenagers, had commaded much of the army in earlier battles.

the_accursed wrote:But I was asking for a precedence. If this was "standard procedure", something every young Macedonian prince had to go through, then there must have been many Macedonian princes before Alexander who, as teenagers, had commaded much of the army in earlier battles.

One of the problems, of course, is that not too many Macedonian princes made it to the sort of age where they could be stuck in a battle! or

I've got to go to work, so I can't write all that I wanted to write now - I might get a chance later today, when I have a precious free period ...

ATB

the_accursed wrote: Thanks, Paralus. And I'm sorry that the discussion between us has been so infected. It always seems to be the case when you and I discuss something.

Don't fret it. I'd prefer to say direct rather than infected. What cloth are you cut from?

the_accursed wrote:But I was asking for a precedence. If this was "standard procedure", something every young Macedonian prince had to go through, then there must have been many Macedonian princes before Alexander who, as teenagers, had commaded much of the army in earlier battles.

You will be very lucky to find it. Macedonian history - as far as intelligible/reliable sources (outside of some numismatics and archaeology) go is thin on the ground prior to Philip. We have references that are oblique in Thucydides, Herodotus and others but fleeting. Suffice to say those compiling "histories" did not have Macedonians on their radar if they did not relate to what they were covering. Hence we hear of Archelaus and Perdiccas II etc in Thucydides only in relation to Athens’ needs for timber and Sparta’s need to dislodge the Thraceward region.

What is safe to say is that the kings of those tribes which later comprised Macedonia (and Greater Macedonia) Illyria, Paeonia, Thrace etc will have had their own courts. They will have led their armed forces into battle and will have needed to win to retain their thrones. Their sons, were they to succeed them, will need to have done similar. It was no different in Lower Macedonia. This is not something Philip will have started and nor will it have been something Antigonus (and Seleucus afterward) simply decided was a “good thing”. It was how they thought. Antigonus – like Philip with Alexander – was grooming Demetrius as his successor. For that to occur, Demetrius had to show his stuff on the field.

Interestingly, in those two battles, much more than Macedonia and Greece were on the line; this was literally for Alexander’s Asian empire. Had Antigonus lost – and I’d argue that he should have, treachery notwithstanding – he’d have lost the lot to Eumenes.

It is very simple. I was discussing it with Karen yesterday, as i met her here in Athens. First of all, Alexander won, and there really aint no debate here. But if you are wondering if Philip had entrusted such a position to his son because he thought he could win, or because of a custom, i think the answer here is also simple. The battle at Chaeronea was of great importance. Philip wouldn't put Alexander against the sacred band unless he knew that he could win. Alexander had experienced generals by his side, but surely Philip also knew his son's tamperament and that the final word at this position would be Alexander's. So yes, he put Alexander there knowing that he would win. I think this should pretty much cover it.

Efstathios

It is very simple. I was discussing it with Karen yesterday, as i met her here in Athens. First of all, Alexander won, and there really aint no debate here. But if you are wondering if Philip had entrusted such a position to his son because he thought he could win, or because of a custom, i think the answer here is also simple. The battle at Chaeronea was of great importance. Philip wouldn't put Alexander against the sacred band unless he knew that he could win. Alexander had experienced generals by his side, but surely Philip also knew his son's tamperament and that the final word at this position would be Alexander's. So yes, he put Alexander there knowing that he would win. I think this should pretty much cover it.

I think that if the decision was based on ability, then Parmenion would have been a better choice. Or any other experienced Macedonian general. If it was a matter of established Macedonian custom, though, then I can accept that Philip would have had little choice in this matter. But if it was custom, I’d also point out that the decision would have said little about what Philip might have thought about Alexander’s ability. That is, then it would be wrong to argue that it was necessarily a sign of “great faith” in Alexander. If it was a old Macedonian custom, then it was just business as usual.

Paralus

Don't fret it. I'd prefer to say direct rather than infected. What cloth are you cut from?

I must admit that I found it rather refreshing. And I think I have a good general idea of what kind of cloth you are cut from. One can count on you to put up a good fight, and I doubt you have a glass jaw. Still, I don’t like the idea of me insulting people I don’t even know over the internet, particularly over something so utterly unimportant as Alexander, or the reasons for why Philip let him command the left wing at Chaeronea. In my opinion, this subject is, in the grand scheme of things, about as important as knitting or stamp collecting. And I suspect that were we to meet in person, our discussions would probably be more civil. But then again, it could also end with broken bones and a trip to the hospital.

You will be very lucky to find it. Macedonian history - as far as intelligible/reliable sources (outside of some numismatics and archaeology) go is thin on the ground prior to Philip. We have references that are oblique in Thucydides, Herodotus and others but fleeting. Suffice to say those compiling "histories" did not have Macedonians on their radar if they did not relate to what they were covering. Hence we hear of Archelaus and Perdiccas II etc in Thucydides only in relation to Athens’ needs for timber and Sparta’s need to dislodge the Thraceward region.

What is safe to say is that the kings of those tribes which later comprised Macedonia (and Greater Macedonia) Illyria, Paeonia, Thrace etc will have had their own courts. They will have led their armed forces into battle and will have needed to win to retain their thrones. Their sons, were they to succeed them, will need to have done similar. It was no different in Lower Macedonia. This is not something Philip will have started and nor will it have been something Antigonus (and Seleucus afterward) simply decided was a “good thing”. It was how they thought. Antigonus – like Philip with Alexander – was grooming Demetrius as his successor. For that to occur, Demetrius had to show his stuff on the field.

Interestingly, in those two battles, much more than Macedonia and Greece were on the line; this was literally for Alexander’s Asian empire. Had Antigonus lost – and I’d argue that he should have, treachery notwithstanding – he’d have lost the lot to Eumenes.

I think it’s entirely possible that you’re right. It’s just that I also think that evidence should be the bottom line. In this case, for the reasons you mentioned, the evidence supporting the idea of a established Macedonian custom seem impossible to find. This could have been – not must, but could have - a custom established by Philip himself. But then again, it’s also entirely possible that it was established long before him.

I haven’t actually disagreed with most of what has been said in this thread. I agree with you that Alexander was being groomed to be king. I agree with Marcus that it was fortunate for Alexander that this happened, considering that Philip died only two years later. And I agree with Phoebus that it is wrong to make anachronistic judgments (and no, I don’t find it hard to understand). And I’m well aware that Macedonia was a warrior culture. I don’t agree with the “it worked, so it must have been the best decision” argument. And I do think that a supervised Alexander as commander, rather than Parmenion in the same position, without supervision, would have meant a weakness in the army. Apparently not a crucial one, but a weakness – comparatively speaking – nonetheless.

But above all, I just don’t think any of these arguments prove that this was an established custom, and that Philip had no real choice in the matter. And as I’m not convinced, I’m going to have to keep my reservations about this decision. I’m going to have to chose the, not so much “agree to disagree” option, as the option to keep my reservations, but continue to hold the door open for evidence that might convince me that this was an established Macedonian custom.

If it was a old Macedonian custom, then it was just business as usual.

Chaeronea though was not just business as usual. And yes, he could have put Parmenion, but he didnt. He put Alexander. I think that is the sum of all that has been said.

P.S Paralus can be a very nice debater and a little stubborn sometimes (not after some glasses of wine though) , i know, we have had some nice debates, but he really is open minded.