Philotas' execution

[bob]

I am new here, and I am a new student of Alexander. I am reading books, I have bought 6 on Alexander, and I have read 3 already, and I am currently reading Peter Green's book (which I find quite good-though reading the Loeb Classical Liabrary of Plutarch's life of Alexander was pretty cool as well.) Nonetheless, I am slightly confused by one thing I have read thus far in Peter Green's book. On p. 340 (I have the hard cover version) he starts discussing Philotas' execution. He starts this run down of Philotas' execution discussing Cebalinus and Dymnus, and some homosexual quarrel. Green implies at the top of p. 341 (unless I misunderstand him) that this story seemed unlikely based on "no witnesses or proof". However, his very last paragraph of chapter 8 (p.349 in my book) he conculdes that we should take the verdict of "not proven" as oppossed to "not guilty" towards Philotas (& Parmenio). I was just wondering how other longer and experienced students of Alexander view the affair. Peter Green earlier in the book (p.100) stated that it was Philotas that told Philip that Alexander ruined Philip's plan to have Arrhidaeus (Alexanders older brother) marry Pixodarus' daughter. Thus, it seemed earlier in the book, Green was implying that this was the grudge Alexander held against Philotas for so long (grudges Alexander never let go of, even after years). However, this other book I read "Alexander: The Conqueror: The Epic Story of the Warrior King by Eugene N. Borza (Foreword), Laura Foreman (Hardcover - September 2004)" gave a different story, saying Philotas had nothing to do with the Pixodarus/daughter affair. (Which means books contradict each other.) THus, I am confused, did Philotas hide a plot, or was he guilty, or was he just a victim of Alexander's wrath and a long time grudge over his tattling to Philip in the Pixodarus daughter affair? Thanks (Hope my question is clear, not clear to myself totally as I re-read it, but I am trying to ask basically if Philotas did have some plot or if Alexander killed him in either paranoia or a grudge from a previous affair).
Bob S

[marcus]

Hi Bob, and welcome to Pothos. WeGÇÖre always delighted to meet new Alexander enthusiasts.I think youGÇÖre right to be a bit confused. I donGÇÖt have time to give a long and over-detailed response, IGÇÖm afraid, but IGÇÖll do my best to try and dissipate the mist!First, the business about Philotas dropping Alexander in it over the Pixodarus affair is supposition on GreenGÇÖs part. In one of the sources (Plutarch, I think), Philip was said to have taken Philotas with him when he went to confront Alexander about his actions. Green (and others) have hypothesised that this means that Philotas ratted on him; others have suggested (more plausibly in my mind) that Philip took him to hold him up to Alexander as the epitome of a good son (ie. One that wouldnGÇÖt foul up his fatherGÇÖs plans). Whichever reason is correct, it is understandable that this might have made Alexander suspicious of Philotas, and cause at least some estrangement between them.As far as the conspiracy at Phrada is concerned, there is absolutely no proof that Philotas was involved in the plot; however, he could be accused of playing fast and loose with AlexanderGÇÖs safety, and for those who wanted to get rid of Philotas (Krateros for sure, and possibly Hephaestion, although thatGÇÖs a whole different argument) it wasnGÇÖt too great a step to convince Alexander that he had some more nefarious purpose.Have you gleaned much in your reading on the relationship between Philotas and some of the other officers (including Krateros)? ThatGÇÖs the really pertinent stuff as far as PhilotasGÇÖ conviction is concerned.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Bob, and welcome to Pothos. WeGÇÖre always delighted to meet new Alexander enthusiasts.I think youGÇÖre right to be a bit confused. I donGÇÖt have time to give a long and over-detailed response, IGÇÖm afraid, but IGÇÖll do my best to try and dissipate the mist!First, the business about Philotas dropping Alexander in it over the Pixodarus affair is supposition on GreenGÇÖs part. In one of the sources (Plutarch, I think), Philip was said to have taken Philotas with him when he went to confront Alexander about his actions. Green (and others) have hypothesised that this means that Philotas ratted on him; others have suggested (more plausibly in my mind) that Philip took him to hold him up to Alexander as the epitome of a good son (ie. One that wouldnGÇÖt foul up his fatherGÇÖs plans). Whichever reason is correct, it is understandable that this might have made Alexander suspicious of Philotas, and cause at least some estrangement between them.As far as the conspiracy at Phrada is concerned, there is absolutely no proof that Philotas was involved in the plot; however, he could be accused of playing fast and loose with AlexanderGÇÖs safety, and for those who wanted to get rid of Philotas (Krateros for sure, and possibly Hephaestion, although thatGÇÖs a whole different argument) it wasnGÇÖt too great a step to convince Alexander that he had some more nefarious purpose.Have you gleaned much in your reading on the relationship between Philotas and some of the other officers (including Krateros)? ThatGÇÖs the really pertinent stuff as far as PhilotasGÇÖ conviction is concerned.ATBMarcus

[kennyxx]

Hi Bob and MarcusWhatever the sources and tellings of the reasons.Its quite apparent Philotas was full of his own imporatnce and readily shot off at the mouth. Its stated than no one liked him. I would argue Philotas was only in his position as any omportance because of his father.One way or another call it murder Alexander of course wanted to be without Parmenio. I would say even though the case against Philotas was poor it offered Alexander the motive to get rid of Parmenio. I always argue Alexanders case but in my opinion. Alexander did want Parmenio out of the way nad we cant assume Alexander was stupid and didnt have anything to do with instituting the whole Scenario. He knew hed get no arguement from his general staff. I guess the gamble was having Parmenio killed.That to me was a big gamble that he pulled off.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Hi Bob and MarcusWhatever the sources and tellings of the reasons.Its quite apparent Philotas was full of his own imporatnce and readily shot off at the mouth. Its stated than no one liked him. I would argue Philotas was only in his position as any omportance because of his father.One way or another call it murder Alexander of course wanted to be without Parmenio. I would say even though the case against Philotas was poor it offered Alexander the motive to get rid of Parmenio. I always argue Alexanders case but in my opinion. Alexander did want Parmenio out of the way nad we cant assume Alexander was stupid and didnt have anything to do with instituting the whole Scenario. He knew hed get no arguement from his general staff. I guess the gamble was having Parmenio killed.That to me was a big gamble that he pulled off.Kenny

[kennyxx]

To top It can I offer an analogy.Parmanio was the only man alive who could criticize or try put a shadow on Alexanders Glory.Forever comparing Philip and Alexander.When I was learning to be a chef I was taken under the wing of a very good chef I respected and laerned many things from him. We worked together a lot. In many kitchens then It got the the stage where I wanted my own reckognition and really didnt want him in the same kitchen. We are still good friends and the stakes for glory were no where near the scale of Alexander.I am more than sure Alexander respected and valued Parmenio up to the end. But inevitably he wished him gone.Kenny

[kennyxx]

To top It can I offer an analogy.Parmanio was the only man alive who could criticize or try put a shadow on Alexanders Glory.Forever comparing Philip and Alexander.When I was learning to be a chef I was taken under the wing of a very good chef I respected and laerned many things from him. We worked together a lot. In many kitchens then It got the the stage where I wanted my own reckognition and really didnt want him in the same kitchen. We are still good friends and the stakes for glory were no where near the scale of Alexander.I am more than sure Alexander respected and valued Parmenio up to the end. But inevitably he wished him gone.Kenny

[Nicator]

Welcome aboard Bob,I used to have an insurance salesman with your name. A weird guy, used to wear makeup (evidently to increase his appeal?) Now onto your post. Marcus' response is quite succint, but I would add that Philotas just could be guilty, along with his father. The ambiguous letter produced at the deposition about "First take care of your own" or something to that effect was a tantalizing bit of information. I'm not quite so concinved that Alexander wanted to be rid of Parmenion altogether. He'd just appointed him to protect the rear, so why would he jeopardize this now? Was he really looking for an opportunity, any opportunity to be rid of the "incubus that had been laid upon him so many years before" as Green so elegantly puts it? I would have to argue that we can't prove Philotas was guilty or innocent nor can we prove Alexander's guilt or innocence in this matter. There was the suborning of Antigonus a few years earlier to find out if the rumors of Philotas' treasonous talk bore any concrete evidence. This Alexander admitted something like seven years after the execution. These little teasers just have to keep you guessing. later Nicator

[Nicator]

Welcome aboard Bob,I used to have an insurance salesman with your name. A weird guy, used to wear makeup (evidently to increase his appeal?) Now onto your post. Marcus' response is quite succint, but I would add that Philotas just could be guilty, along with his father. The ambiguous letter produced at the deposition about "First take care of your own" or something to that effect was a tantalizing bit of information. I'm not quite so concinved that Alexander wanted to be rid of Parmenion altogether. He'd just appointed him to protect the rear, so why would he jeopardize this now? Was he really looking for an opportunity, any opportunity to be rid of the "incubus that had been laid upon him so many years before" as Green so elegantly puts it? I would have to argue that we can't prove Philotas was guilty or innocent nor can we prove Alexander's guilt or innocence in this matter. There was the suborning of Antigonus a few years earlier to find out if the rumors of Philotas' treasonous talk bore any concrete evidence. This Alexander admitted something like seven years after the execution. These little teasers just have to keep you guessing. later Nicator

[Nicator]

As a sidenote, I would add to be careful when reading Green. His writing style tends more towards the seductive rather than the provocative. Though he will rarely steer you too far from the beaten trail of fact, and his grasp of the genre is comprehensive and impressive, sometimes he writes a bit too much with a purpose. Yours,
Nicator

[Nicator]

As a sidenote, I would add to be careful when reading Green. His writing style tends more towards the seductive rather than the provocative. Though he will rarely steer you too far from the beaten trail of fact, and his grasp of the genre is comprehensive and impressive, sometimes he writes a bit too much with a purpose. Yours,
Nicator

[marcus]

Totally agree about Green. I really like the book, and his writing style appeals to me enormously; but he can go a bit too far down some paths for which he doesn't really have enough evidence. (He's not as bad as Worthington for that, though!)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Totally agree about Green. I really like the book, and his writing style appeals to me enormously; but he can go a bit too far down some paths for which he doesn't really have enough evidence. (He's not as bad as Worthington for that, though!)ATBMarcus

[kennyxx]

Marcus Im sure you have read Alexander and the Invisible Enemy.A point id like to ask. Im surev there is a refernce or a story that an initial attack by Alexander at Granicas was beaten off and Alexander had to re attack again. What do you think the substance or the reasoning is behind this. The writer actually calls it Alexanders one and only defeat.Cheerskenny

[kennyxx]

Marcus Im sure you have read Alexander and the Invisible Enemy.A point id like to ask. Im surev there is a refernce or a story that an initial attack by Alexander at Granicas was beaten off and Alexander had to re attack again. What do you think the substance or the reasoning is behind this. The writer actually calls it Alexanders one and only defeat.Cheerskenny