Execution in ATG's reign

[Jack]

HiI was thinking of writing an essay (just to extend my understanding) about execution in ATG's reign and its significance.Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew of any other significant executions ordered by Alexander apart from these:The Lyncestian Brothers
Amyntas (post-Phillip)
Attalus (technically not execution)
Bessus (+ Spitamenes and the other conceivably)
Callisthenes
Philotas
Parmenio (again, more assassination)
'Ringleaders' at OpisI'm pretty sure what I'm gonna say, I just want to make sure I haven't missed any important ones.Thanks

[nick]

Just for the record: Spitamenes was not executed by Alexander. His head was cut of by his own 'rebels' and delivered to Alexander. His compatriot Dataphernes was taken prisoner by his own troops and handed over to Alexander. I know of no execution. Years later Seleucus married the daughther of Spitamenes - Apame - and she became the first queen of the Seleucid empire. (That would have been a strange move if Alexander had indeed executed her father.)Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

I like the idea. What I think is particularly interesting is the number of times Alexander refrained from execution, as a political move. For example, even though Alexander of Lynkestis was arrested early in the campaign, the king specifically refrained from having him executed for some time, only doing so, "on the quiet", after the Philotas conspiracy. The question also arises as to whether Alexander always intended to have him done away with - as the Lynkestian was the first to acclaim his as king, it would have looked rather bad to have him executed then... yet he did have the other two brothers dealt with.Also, after the murder of Attalos, and Olympias' murder of Eurydike and the baby, Alexander signally *didn't* get rid of Hegelochos, another kinsman of Attalos. All the bestMarcus

[Tre]

There is some disagreement as to what actually befell Callisthenes - whether he was executed or died of other causes. Regards,Tre

[Jack]

Thanks a lot guysNick - thanks for letting me know. I suppose I just assumed he received the same fate as Bessus, but apparently not :)Marcus - that's an interesting idea to add, I'll have to do a bit more research and investigate its significanceTre - I realise we can't be sure about Callisthenes' death, but I've found there is debate on so many areas of Alexander's life, that I just have to come to a relatively sound conclusion and stick to it, especially if it will further an argument in my essay :p But I will certainly make note that we cannot be sure Callisthenes was actually *executed* by Alexander.Thanks again

[Linda]

There are also the satraps Alexander killed after he returned from India. One he had executed for robbing the tomb of Cyrus the Great, and the other he allegedly ran through with a spear himself. I am afraid I can't remember their names, but the story of the first is in both Curtius and Arrian. Plus some Greeks who were alleged by their subjects to be corrupt. Quoted here:http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... _t22.htmlI suppose these killings may be significant as they were seen as a sign of Alexander's increased autocracy. Although he killed Cleitus in a drunken argument, I think I am right in saying that Cleitus was later deemed by the Macedonian Assembly to have been a traitor, and so the killing was "legal" ie an execution. So *that* is what it means to be a king

[agesilaos]

Also the satrap who failed to deliver supplies during the Gedrosian march;, every in in Tyre and Gaza and several Sogdian towns, and Bad Poros, off the top of my head; my references are elsewhere.

[jan]

I have read the it was because of his speech to the soldiers that he gave describing their negative attributes that turned them against him, and thus, he either hanged himself or was killed. He had praised them so well that when he turned the tables and gave them the other side of the coin, they seemed not to be able to accept it. His criticism was so apt, apparently, that it must have hit a few nerves.

[jan]

It seems that he was so distraught that one of his aides decided that he must get himself out of his stupor and thus planted the seed of Cleitus having been a traitor to ease the guilt. What does that have to do with being a King as you put it? The point is that he lost it, realized it, and felt extreme compunction, but it lasted so long that the more crafty of his friends was able to assuage his guilty feelings for him. That is a sign of a good and worthwhile companion in my opinion, and being the real ruler of his army, someone had to help him in his time of need also.Something that you do not seem to realize is that all his troops relied upon his decisions, his person, and his station as the cause for their own existence in his army. He is more than just a King.
Without him, the army is literally like a ship without a rudder, a sail, or a purpose. Alexander is much more than just a king. He is their compass, and it was essential to their wellbeing for him to be up and about and not moping around feeling sorry for himself.

[Linda]

I meant, Janet, that the next time I kill someone in a drunken argument, it would be great if all my mates decided that the other person was really a traitor to me, rather than my being a murderer. But you are right, of course, it was essential to have Cleitus declared a traitor, as the King could not kill without justification, particularly such a key person as Cleitus; it would undermine the King's authority. But, as Curtuis pointed out, it must have had an effect on how he was viewed - the Cleitus affair is a famous one, which makes me think (and someone can probably tell me) that although a murderous killing may not have been a great surprise to his Companions, given his temper, it was one more reason for his enemies to call him a tyrant.
I don't think anyone can believe that Alexander was justified in this action - Cleitus was a fool, no more than that, and the tales of the pre-fight arguing don't put Alexander and his friends in a very good light, I don't think. As they are reported.
What I meant by the quote is that old argument about how much the monarch should be subject to the law, and how much they are above it - divine right of Kings and all that. Of course the army needed Alexander - he had brought them there in the first place - but does that mean he could do anything he wanted, as long as it kept him on an even keel? Bad king, not good king. Harking back to Susan's point, a lot of people did a lot of spinning after *that* incident. And it shifted what it *did* mean to be a king for the Macedonians - moving more to the absolute monarch Persian model. Discuss?

[ruthaki]

What about all those men who were executed in Tyre and their bodies left out for viewing. Also the guy from Gaza who was dragged behind a chariot (or so they say) and also Hephaistion's doctor was executed.

[jan]

Linda, I had to write a new question as for some reason I could not get my response on the board to your comment. The point is that while Alexander had any number of persons executed I think it likely that to have Philip forever hanging over his head caused his reaction, not just because he may have been drunk. Nerves on edge, and nagging from Cleitus drove him over the edge. The wine may have relaxed his inhibitions.

[jan]

Good point, Ruth. I appreciated Manfredi's explanation for the execution of the doctor. Otherwise, it does seem quite unfair.And I am also interested in where and how authors would introduce all the various gods and goddesses into their stories. The Iliad is the model for Alexander to the point of even the funeral pyre. I especially enjoyed the funeral pyre that Achilles made for Patroclus, and understand why it is that Alexander built such a splendid one for Hephaestion.But nobody writes about how the gods and goddesses played with Alexander in his adventures as Homer does in the Iliad. I wonder why that is.

[Jack]

I just assumed that even the ancient authors had some appreciation of the mythical and unqualifiable nature of the gods and their actions, and wished to identify their works as prosaic academic histories instead of poetic odes.

[jan]

The thing that impresses me about Alexander is that he is so under the influence of Achilles to the point that he had wanted an ode written for him. So I naturally believe that an ode would have Achilles coming and going giving him much needed advice and counsel as well as assistance. It is pure imagination but then Alexander's exploits lend the possibilities of the gods giving them a helping hand. Sure, for historical purists, one might think that the gods were only fantasies, but Alexander lived his life dedicated to appeasing all the gods with sacrifices. I really think that to eliminate the influence of those mischievous gods and goddesses is like attending a musical without the orchestra present.