Philip the doctor

[lucian]

Hello all,I've been gone for a while, so I wish everyone a happy new year!I do have a question, Recently on the Discovery Channel (I think) there was this special on Alexander's death, and it concluded that Alexander was "accidently" killed by the ingesting higher amounts of hellebore, to cure him from depression. In my mind that's a possibility, because hellebore was used effectively to cure him before, or so some people think. It was a purging medicine and widely used, but in higher consentrations, it's deadly. Who knows what hapenned to Philip, the doctor who cured Alexander the first time around? I don't know much about what hapenned to him, but a thought occured to me. What if Philip was instructed to cure Hephaistion and failed? From what I remember, Alexander killed the doctors who were in charge of Hephaistion. Although I firmly believe that historians would never leave out the name of Philip, because that would just be evidence supporting Alexander's cruely. They would have no doubt equalled Philip's death to that of Cleitus. However, what if Philip did die? What that means, is that there was no one efficient enough to measure the amounts of hellebore Alexander was capable of enduring. Yes, most doctors would have known about it, but then, it was Alexander's life in jeopardy this time. Another thing, if poison is suspected, as one theory suggests that the doctor purposely gave Alexander a larger dosage - it couldn't have been Philip. Alexander was loyal to him, and him to Alexander. So, where was Philip when all this was hapenning?

[agesilaos]

Hephaistion's doctor was Glaukias; had Philip been available then he would surely have treated him. He probably died in India. There is a Philip in the list of guests at Medeios' fatal party but he must be another Philip; one got a satrapy but was murdered in India, perhaps he was the doctor and Ptolemy just ommitted to mention it. In the 'Liber de Morte' Philip appears as a Chaldean although this is not the actual name in the text which is Phippus it is usually emended.

[agesilaos]

Hephaistion's doctor was Glaukias; had Philip been available then he would surely have treated him. He probably died in India. There is a Philip in the list of guests at Medeios' fatal party but he must be another Philip; one got a satrapy but was murdered in India, perhaps he was the doctor and Ptolemy just ommitted to mention it. In the 'Liber de Morte' Philip appears as a Chaldean although this is not the actual name in the text which is Phippus it is usually emended.

[jan]

I agree that had Philip been able to use the same medicine that he had used on Alexander earlier he would probably have saved Alexander's life again. It is too bad that he had not written the prescription for later use.

[jan]

I agree that had Philip been able to use the same medicine that he had used on Alexander earlier he would probably have saved Alexander's life again. It is too bad that he had not written the prescription for later use.

[marcus]

Well, that's not necessarily the case, Jan. We have no way of knowing whether it was the same illness, so what worked at Tarsus would by no means be sure to work in Babylon; and if Alexander *was* poisoned, then Philip, had he been there, was not necessarily in a position to cure him.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Well, that's not necessarily the case, Jan. We have no way of knowing whether it was the same illness, so what worked at Tarsus would by no means be sure to work in Babylon; and if Alexander *was* poisoned, then Philip, had he been there, was not necessarily in a position to cure him.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi all,Philip of Acarnania's last mention in the sources is at the siege of Gaza, when he extracted an arrow from Alexander's shoulder (QC 4.6.17-20).ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi all,Philip of Acarnania's last mention in the sources is at the siege of Gaza, when he extracted an arrow from Alexander's shoulder (QC 4.6.17-20).ATBMarcus

[jan]

HI Marcus, I understand your point of view, but while I was reading Arrian's Anabasis, I happened to read about the first time that he had been in the river, and had caught a fever, and it struck me at how similar the two symptoms are in fact. I had not yet read the Anabasis so I will have to purchase Volumes I and II now when I can. I am still reading Cyropedia slowly.I just have never believed the theory that Alexander was poisoned despite all the books out to claim that he was. I am still of the opinion that his men were true and faithful to him, and that they realized that he is the indispensable man to them and their cause. Alexander was bigger than life to most of them in their minds, and never did they try to pull them down to their size such as modern day contemporary authors try to do. I honestly believe that they kept him elevated as his works proved that his being one of the gods in action came true for them, and they would have wanted to do more rather than cut and run.

[jan]

HI Marcus, I understand your point of view, but while I was reading Arrian's Anabasis, I happened to read about the first time that he had been in the river, and had caught a fever, and it struck me at how similar the two symptoms are in fact. I had not yet read the Anabasis so I will have to purchase Volumes I and II now when I can. I am still reading Cyropedia slowly.I just have never believed the theory that Alexander was poisoned despite all the books out to claim that he was. I am still of the opinion that his men were true and faithful to him, and that they realized that he is the indispensable man to them and their cause. Alexander was bigger than life to most of them in their minds, and never did they try to pull them down to their size such as modern day contemporary authors try to do. I honestly believe that they kept him elevated as his works proved that his being one of the gods in action came true for them, and they would have wanted to do more rather than cut and run.

[marcus]

I can see where you're coming from, Jan, but there just isn't enough information about the Tarsus illness (at least) for us to make any assumption that they were one and the same problem.Of course it is only fair to acknowledge that, by the same token, they *might* have been (although I really do think it unlikely); in which case the question of whether Philip could have cured him does arise. However, see my note to Karl about Philip's last appearance in the sources (the Philip who is mentioned at Medios' feast is a different one). ATBMarcus

[marcus]

I can see where you're coming from, Jan, but there just isn't enough information about the Tarsus illness (at least) for us to make any assumption that they were one and the same problem.Of course it is only fair to acknowledge that, by the same token, they *might* have been (although I really do think it unlikely); in which case the question of whether Philip could have cured him does arise. However, see my note to Karl about Philip's last appearance in the sources (the Philip who is mentioned at Medios' feast is a different one). ATBMarcus

[marcus]

I should add that, one of the reasons why I really don't think they can have been the same illness, is the fact that at Tarsus Alexander was struck down after bathing in the freezing river - which either caused the illness, or caused it to manifest itself. There was no such shock in Babylon - while the wine might have caused the manifestation of the illness, I don't know whether it would be likely to bring on the same illness as in Tarsus.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

I should add that, one of the reasons why I really don't think they can have been the same illness, is the fact that at Tarsus Alexander was struck down after bathing in the freezing river - which either caused the illness, or caused it to manifest itself. There was no such shock in Babylon - while the wine might have caused the manifestation of the illness, I don't know whether it would be likely to bring on the same illness as in Tarsus.ATBMarcus