pothos.org

I finally got round to reading Halil and SikanderGÇÖs piece on the death of Philip II this weekend and was siezed with the urge to spill ink.They make great play of the fact that Alexander was threatened by KleopatraGÇÖs son Karanos; there is one problem with that : she bore no son !KaranosGÇÖ existence depends solely upon Justin-Trogus and even he never states that the boy is KleopatraGÇÖs. Indeed the chronology will just not stretch enough for her to have two full-term pregnancies and her daughter, Europe is well attested. So we either ditch Karanos, as several scholars have (Bosworth and Tarn being unlikely bed-fellows in so doing) or find him another mother.I tend to agree with Unz (JHS 1985 pp171-4 GÇÿAlexanderGÇÖs brothers?GÇÖ) that the references in Justin should outweigh the argumentum ex silentio from our other sources and accept that Karanos existed and was seen as a potential threat and treated accordingly.The problem is now to find him a mother. Satyros (in Athenaeus xiii 557) names seven brides of Philip and their offspring though not in chronological order. Ellis GÇÿPhilip II and Macedonian ImperialismGÇÖ has an acceptable order for these unions and space does not allow the rehearsal of his arguments here. So ;- Phila (Elimiote) no children possibly before his accession
Audata (Illyrian) Kynna- 359
Philinna (Larissan) Philp Arrhidaeos-358
Olympias (Molosssian) Alexander and Kleopatra-357
Nikesipolis (Pheraian) Thessalonike-352
Meda (Thracian) only her dowry noted-342
And Kleopatra GÇô337Were Karanos one of the kingGÇÖs bastards it is unlikely he would have posed a threat as bastardy excluded one from inheriting therefore one of the above must have borne him. Philip ArrhidaeosGÇÖ bastardy is a propaganda myth.We can immediately dispense with Kleopatra and Olympias. In 336 any child of Meda would only have been 5 years old and half Thracian, I do not think this would constitute a great threat though I wouldnGÇÖt doubt Alexander would kill any rival her match seems to have been more about money in the bank than anythingelse. Children of Phila and Audata must have been older than Alexander and therefore Crown prince before him as Philip must have been until his condition became apparent and would thus have been noted as having been supplanted, similarly if Philip had a younger brother he would crop up in the sources and it is unlikely Alexander could kill him and let Philip live due to the

We can immediately dispense with Kleopatra and Olympias. In 336 any child of Meda would only have been 5 years old and half Thracian, I do not think this would constitute a great threat though I wouldnGÇÖt doubt Alexander would kill any rival her match seems to have been more about money in the bank than anythingelse. Children of Phila and Audata must have been older than Alexander and therefore Crown prince before him as Philip must have been until his condition became apparent and would thus have been noted as having been supplanted, similarly if Philip had a younger brother he would crop up in the sources and it is unlikely Alexander could kill him and let Philip live due to the blood-feud.Which leaves Nikesipolis. Surely ThessalonikeGÇÖs later status as CassanderGÇÖs wife would have ensured the noting of her brother? Well, firstly she only has value because of her father and if you think about it someone did note the existence of her brother, in an anti-Alexander context too, which would fit with CassanderGÇÖs take on history. Why not mention the family connection? Traitors are a bit of an embarrassment when you are King. This putative Karanos could have been fourteen or fifteen in 336 a real threat and possibly already at the centre of a faction.Contra Halil/Sikander I see the wedding at Aegae as strengthening AlexanderGÇÖs position as heir; Philip II clearly associates himself with his son and gives him second place to himself. Olympias is being marginalised but Alexander is being brought back into the limelight. Is it an accident then that Philip puts Attallos and Parmenion (Thessallian ties, pro-Karanos?) in charge of the Epeditionary force where thay cannot upset his sonGÇÖs delicate temperament? Amyntas is not sufficiently fleshed for anything concrete to be said about him, another dissenter or PhilipGÇÖs man to watch the other two?

Hi Karl -I think you should not limit yourself to the Forum. Please add articles like this one to our website. Become an author. Otherwise, mail these texts to me (preferably in .txt format) so I can paste them on our site to balance the articles that are already there.You know, anything in the Forum is there for two or three weeks, then it has slipped away into oblivion.So, valuable insights need to be transformed into a proper article, I guess.Regards -Nick

An interesting article, Karl. One thing though, I don't see why children of Phila and Audata should necessarily have been older than Alexander - I don't see why Philip should have been serially monogamous, and he could have been having children by any of his wives if they were still alive and fertile - so marrying Olympias didn't mean that he stopped having sexual relations with his previous wives. So for instance Alexander had a son by his earliest wife although he had subsequently married twice.There are hints in the Alexander Romances of other sons of Philip - in the Syrian version Alexander is named after a previous son of Philip by another wife, although it is difficult to say whether this is just fiction as the rest of the section concerns magicians.Susan

That is a good point,only I think Phila is said to have died before Alexander's birth and I think there may have been a period when Philip and Olympias actually got on; with the birth of Alexander her status would have been enhanced, more so once Arrhidaeos had been found wanting. Aside from the jealous wife angle it would have been poor policy on Philip's part as sons born to former wives may have had a claim to the throne by virtue of the precedence of their mother's union. This would be inviting civil war, Philip didn't mind having a spare heir but I don't think he would create rival ones.Philip could have sowed his oats anywhere so why create a potential danger, only Olympias and Kleopatra are attested as love matches after all.I admit that this is by no means conclusive, however.

My point is that I don't think that they were necessarily former wives, but parallel ones - cf Roxana and Barsine-Stateira. Precedence changed of course, but I think there was a fairly pragmatic view that the best heir would succeed - compare Alexander's alleged dying words - 'To the best'. After Chaeronea I think it would have been inconceivable that any other heir would have been realistically chosen above Alexander.Susan

I agree, Susan.Also, with the exception of Arrhidaios, there wasn't another son of anything near Alexander's age. So it doesn't really matter whether Karanos was Eurydice's son or someone else's - if he was still a child then Alexander didn't have much to fear.I remember that someone, Elizabeth Carney I think, wrote a very interesting piece on Arrhidaios in the Ancient History Bulletin. I can't remember it all, but I do recall that she half-argues that Arrhidaios wasn't too much of an idiot, and also that there is no reason to accept that he was *older* than Alexander, hence Alexander's taking precedence as heir - the assumption that he was older all comes from the Tarnian moral view, which wouldn't allow Philip to have more than one wife at a time.All the bestMarcus

Greetings Karl,
Thank you for your additions to the article. "Great play" regarding Karanos is not exactly the defining line, but as explained, we presented the arguments as stated in the sources overall. Had we presented even more of the information, we would have had several theories "well-documented" , so we actually weaned out quite a lot. That said, Nick's suggestion to add your input to the articles section is a good one, as it brings out even more possibilities.
Regards,
Sikander

I think that it is very interesting, though, to see where the histories diverge. A recent example was a 2-page article last week in the UK Daily Mail about Alexander - it's not clear why the article was written as it had no topical links apart from mention of films. The headline was "Alexander the gruesome" - subtitle 'He is portrayed as the noblest of warriors but in fact Alexander was a drunken, sex-obsessed butcher, addicted to torture, whose favourite sport was crucifying his rivals."The article could almost have been written by Justin - it covered the murder of Cleitus, Callisthenes, the execution of the governor of Gaza and of Bessus, followed by his sexual activities- the author even calls him 'tri-sexual' (men,women and eunuchs). It is more or less correct in detail, though. My point is - supposing that Justin/Trogus was written in this mould, how much reliance should be placed upon it either historically or by interpretation ?Susan

This is the point I consistently make regarding "history" being a "best guess" fiction.
We are left with secondary sources as a base for educated guesses by historians and others. The most true thing that can be said is that we can never know anything for certain, we can only know what our best guess is at the moment- or until a new grave is discovered, or a new fact found.
All in all, it makes a fascinating horse race!
Regards,
Sikander

I think that Justin may have noted Arrhidaeos' age when he mentions his death, this is his usual practice, unfortunately I haven't a copy of the relevant books, for some reason Loeb have never got round to releasing Justin/Trogus.

Thanks for the vote of confidence: how does one become an author? I'm not up to speed with attachments etc.I shall rework this and e-mail the revised version to you in a more academic style, I hope, addressing the forums concerns.

That would make sense, I suppose! :-)I know there is a translation of Justin, issued by the Oxford University Press. Unfortunately it's hideously expensive so I've not got round to getting it yet.I'll see if I can dig out the article, also, which might give us his age - it should do, if it's mentioned anywhere in the sources. Problem is, I don't know whether it's with the rest of my library...All the bestMarcus

There's an online version of Justin - in Latin unfortunately. It shouldn't be beyond a group of us to translate it - anyone else interested in having a go ?
It is at
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/justin.html The actual reference to Caranus is
"Aemulum quoque imperii, Caranum, fratrem ex noverca susceptum, interfici curavit." in book XISusan

Hi Karl -Yes - that is perfect. I will admit that the whole conspiracy thing around Philip never managed to attract my full attention. It is the period in Alexander's life I know very little about. I am hardly able to keep up with the conversation you had with Marcus about "the Seven".So, yes, please, if you want to avoid the hassle of becoming an author - I am always willing to do the Pothos-editing work for you.Yes, I would very much appreciate an article about the relations, positions etc. at the Argead court at the moment of Alexander's accession.Regards -
Nick