Did Alexander kill his father to become king?

[Robbert]

Hi there,When I read about Philip being murdered just after Alexander returned from Epirus, the first thing that came up to me was that he, Aleaxander, might have killed Philip. He was the only possible heir to the throne, so maybe he killed his father in order to become king.I'm wondering now, if any of you know this might be true (or possible).Robbert

[susan]

I think it's very dubious - Alexander was religious, and patricide ( killing your father) was one of the worst possible sins.Susan

[Linda]

It has been argued that his succession was under threat from the marriage of Philip and Attalus's daughter, and that was reason enough for him to kill his father. It seems unlikely, however, given his character that he would have dealt with it in this way. But that's not to say that the people around him (eg his mother) may have protected his succession by killing Philip. Indeed, that is what was thought at the time, by some people. But others had an interest in killing Philip - Darius, the Athenians, even those who wished to upset the power balance in Macedon to their own ends. Pausinas may have been a pawn, or it may just have been a crime of slighted honour.

[smittysmitty]

Hi, Susan, ATG being religious, thats kinda new, I've not heard that before? Patricide a no-no? I would have thought that sort of thing was indicative of Argead lifestyle, unless Al was a 'born again Olympian'.(not sure what you call the religion of the day)!But thats comming from someone who believes Al was most definately behind the demise of his father. :)No seriously, although nothing can be proved, I just think there are far to many events leading up to the demise of Philip, which implicate ATG with the death. The Attalus debacle, fleeing to Illyria, Pixodorus affair,Cynanne's marriage to Amyntas, estranged relationship between Cleopatra and Philip, and maybe more, just can't think of them at moment. Although there is no hard proof and there never will be, certainly a lot of circumstantial events which may suggest his course of action.Verdict - Guilty! LoLSentence - To be king for the next decade or so!anywaycheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,Oh, Alexander was definitely religious - you only have to look at the care he took to fulfil his religious obligations (sacrifices, etc.), his honour of shrines, his heeding of omens... all the way through his life. As for patricide... I know that the Argeads were pretty notorious for bumping off the odd family member here and there - and Alexander had his own cousin killed (ref our discussion of Amyntas on the other thread); but killing one's father was a totally different matter. Anyway, even if other Argeads were guilty of patricide (which I don't think they were) it doesn't make it any less heinous. I think that Alexander, particularly because he was so 'Hellenised', would have shied away from it even if others didn't.All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi Marcus, I think his treatment of the priestess at Delphi, and changing names of months are good indicators of what he thought of religion. He was above religion,(in my opinion) and if the introduction of a thirteenth statue of Philip amongst the gods at the festival is anything to go by, perhaps all the Argeads felt they were beyond religion. I believe it (religion) was a tool that was necessary for their(Argead) own preservation/justification, allowing an unchallenged dynasty to exist.Much of what has been written regarding Alexanders religiosity perhaps is more so a reflection of those writers own proccupation with such matters and not necessarily ATG's.Having said that, the incident with the priestess at Delphi, and the changing of names of various months may also be fiction :(Shame our sources are so full of dribble that we find it hard to know whats real and what isnt., but guess part of the fun is having these types of discussions.Cheers.

[amyntoros]

I'm in total agreement on the religious issue - it's one of those little areas of Alexander-related study where little attention has been paid, but is interesting nevertheless. Most everyone at the time lived and breathed their religion as a part of daily life. There really wasn't a concept of "sin" as we know it today, but patricide was the most heinous crime imaginable. So if Alexander *was* involved in Philip's murder he would have had to make sure no one was left alive who could tell the tale - and of course there are many who argue that this is exactly what Alexander did! In the end it all boils down to one's opinion of Alexander's character. I personally don't think he was involved, but I can appreciate the arguments from the other side. :-)Regards,Linda Ann

[amyntoros]

Hi Smitty:Changing the months was quite a common practice at the time, especially in Athens - sometimes I wonder how anyone knew what the date actually was! I'm glad you brought up the incident at Delphi. Manhandling the priestess was the one thing (if true) that goes completely against the grain when it comes to Alexander's religious practices. It was Apollo's temple and Apollo's priestess, and I don't recall any other reference to Apollo in the histories. I've often wondered if this is because of Alexander's love of the Iliad and his supposed identification with Achilles - who had every reason not to be too fond of the god! Okay, this is a fanciful subject, I know, but you did bring it up! :-)Regards,Linda Ann

[alejandro]

Hi MarcusSorry for my cynicism, but you donGÇÖt need to infer from your arguments that he GÇ£wasGÇ¥ religious (in the sense of truly believing) but simply that he GÇ£acted as ifGÇ¥ he were religious (mainly following the rites).DoesnGÇÖt mean, on the other hand, that he wasnGÇÖt. We just canGÇÖt say.There is plenty of GÇ£spin doctoringGÇ¥ in nowadays politics that proves that whatever one does in public doesnGÇÖt necessarily coincides with oneGÇÖs beliefs. And I donGÇÖt think that politics changed so much in 2,300 years!Kind regardsAlejandro

[keyakutchai]

I actually believe he did, and that was his reason for returning.

[stefko9@hotmail.com]

Of course he did not kill his own father...
His father was guaranteed of passing on the throne to Aleksandar only. He planned to do this before his death, although Aleksandar's Illyrian mother may have tried to convince him otherwise and poisin his mind. But in fact it was her that either killed/arranged for Filip to be murdered not only due to the fact of Aleksandar gaining the throne which was going to happen inevitably but because of her jealousy of Filips new wife and torment of being Non-Macedonian.

[ruthaki]

His mother, Olympias, was not Illyrian. She was from Epirus (born around Arta). Although she was notoriously furious with Philip it hasn't been proven she had a hand in it though it was mighty suspicious. And I highly doubt Alexander had anything to do with it. More likely Persian/Greek conspiracy.

[marcus]

Hi Linda,Good point. I'm always inclined to think it fiction, not only because it goes so against his nature, but also because it's far too convenient a story (if you see what I mean). Your point about Apollo's non-appearance elsewhere in Al's religious life is interesting - also because Philip made such a big thing about being "Apollo's champion" in the Sacred War.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

If I ever get the time and money to do an MPhil/PhD, my intention is to do a proper study of the religious life of the Argead kings. Time isn't so much of an issue, but the money is. Maybe I'll write a book on it anyway, and worry about getting the letters after my name later... :-)Marcus

[marcus]

Hi Alejandro,You're not wrong... and I half expected someone to pull me up on that!The sign of his religiosity is probably not in his observance of rites/sacrifices - because, as you say, that was what he was required to do. However, his belief in, and adherence to omens/portents is more convincing (to me), because that was a matter of personal belief rather than protocol.Having said that, it is possible that his attitude did change as time went on. There is the story (in Curtius, I think) that he once got very annoyed with Aristander, because the seer told someone about a bad omen he'd seen, without Alexander's say-so. This suggests to me that he was getting more sceptical, and wanted to control the 'words of the gods' more.All the bestMarcus