pothos.org

For a little light relief, here's a poll. Thanks to Agesilaos for making me aware you could post a poll on pothos.

It appears that Alexander stabbed Cleitus with the spear, rather than hurling a javelin at him. If he was that close to Cleitus, why did he not just hit him? Alexander's usual ruthless decisiveness to take complete charge of the situation, or cowardice? Did he fear getting in a fight with possibly a bigger man than himself, which he might lose? Is such a drastic solution to a challenge what made him a king?

Alexias wrote:For a little light relief, here's a poll. Thanks to Agesilaos for making me aware you could post a poll on pothos.

It appears that Alexander stabbed Cleitus with the spear, rather than hurling a javelin at him. If he was that close to Cleitus, why did he not just hit him? Alexander's usual ruthless decisiveness to take complete charge of the situation, or cowardice? Did he fear getting in a fight with possibly a bigger man than himself, which he might lose? Is such a drastic solution to a challenge what made him a king?

Or was it just the effects of alcohol (which is my vote)? Back in the day (my day!) I had a small business making couture clothes and I financed the purchase of fabrics and the like by bar-tending at a local bar. I watched many an individual change personalities the drunker they became and even the meekest man could become a warrior if he was so inclined and had imbibed enough. I really don't believe a sober Alexander would have even considered attacking Cleitus let alone killing him with his own hand and the fact that Cleitus left and then came back cinches it with me. Returning to the fray has only one reason/effect and that is to provoke. Unfortunately Cleitus succeeded beyond all imagining.

Best regards,

Alexander was obviously in battle mode. He was unarmed as someone had removed his sword, which means he wasn't wearing it as he reclined on his couch but it was placed nearby should he need it. Cleitus, on his way out, would presumably have had his sword with him, either slung over his chest or perhaps still in its sheath and in his hand as he picked it up. Either way, he was armed and Alexander wasn't and if Cleitus made a threatening move, even began to draw his sword, that might have precipitated Alexander's attack. As you say, Macedonian drinking parties were violent affairs - apples and goblets being thrown around - and were more akin to Saturday night down the pub after a football match than an elegant soiree.

Kleitos was not armed nor were any of the diners, the Guards alone had weapons, Alexander had a dagger under his cushion which Lysimachos removed when things began to get hairy; had anyone else been armed this would have been High Treason.

Alexander must have been in the habit of keeping his weapon there, though, otherwise how did Lysimachos know where to look? Given Argaead history it was not an unsensible precaution

Since it was his normal practice the dagger cannot be pointed at as an indication of premeditation; without premeditation no 'mens rea' and therfore no justifiable charge of 'murder' in English Law, yet it was a killing and an unlawful one so it has to go down as manslaughter, although one might argue that Kleitos returning to the argument would allow a verdict of 'death by reckless behaviour' or 'misadventure', it would be sophistry but...

A cardinal principal in criminal cases is the question 'Cui bono?', not a shout out for the singer of U2, but 'Who stands to gain?' Alexander had already made Kleitos satrap of Bactria, he was out of his hair, killing him did Alexander no service, and risked alienating the Old Guard completely. A great battlefield thinker, Alexander does not seem to have been so acute politically. Were the killing not sheer drunken bad luck, there would be a much more Machiavellian mind behind things ... and Alexander would be as much a puppet as Kleitos

Ah, that comes of posting without checking whether it was a dagger or sword.

I did check though and it looks as if Aristophanes, a bodyguard, removed the dagger (Plutarch). Interestingly, Curtius says that Ptolemy and Perdiccas held Alexander while Lysimachus and Leonnatus relieved Alexander of the lance he had grabbed from a guard. Alexander then stormed out into the vestibule, grabbed another spear from another guard and then waited for Cleitus to come out before stabbing him. It's too suspicious that he would have grabbed two spears so it looks as if Curtius has got this muddled. However, Curtius strongly implies pre-meditation to kill.

Plutarch says that Cleitus was hustled out through one door but came back in through another door, and as he was drawing aside the door curtain, Alexander ran him through. Curtius also mentions the curtain, so it must have been significant. The best interpretation seems to be that Curtius was yelling before he came through the curtain and Alexander, forewarned and further incensed, grabbed the spear and ran at him. But the curtain does mean that Cleitus didn't see it coming and didn't have a chance to defend himself.

Well, Xenophon is the 'blood-sucking lawyer', to quote Jurassic Park, that's the film, not Paralus (how to win friends etc) I think he will support me in saying that seizing a weapon while still raging and the fight unresolved, hardly constiutes 'pre-meditation', the crime was committed while 'the natural balance of Alexander's mind was disturbed' which also makes it manslaughter.

It might be possible to charge Alexander with murder, neverthe less, I think, if one could demonstrate that murder was his modus operandi; I defer to a legal judgement on that one, (can just see Ernst Badian entering the witness box as an expert witness for the prosecution, sadly another who could only be there in spirit).

It never ceases to amaze me that people are quick to deprecate lawyers and call them names – until they need a saviour to get them out of trouble, or solve a problem for them!

Shakespeare seems to have been instrumental in starting this fashion trend, since he wrote a good deal about lawyers in his plays. The most famous, of course is “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.” (2 Henry VI, 4.2.59, Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade); but there are plenty of others, such as “I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical, nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's, which is politic.”(As You Like It, 4.1.97, Jaques to Rosalind) or “Then 'tis like the breath of an unfee'd lawyer; you gave me nothing for't.” (King Lear, 1.4.122, the Fool.

In English literature, many writers followed this trend, such as Charles Dickens, who famously concocted the “Jarndyce” case which lasted centuries and beggared everyone but the lawyers. The trend even continues into our own times, for example, “We are all honourable men here, we do not have to give each other assurances as if we were lawyers.” ― Mario Puzo, The Godfather.

Turning to the question of whether Alexander murdered Cleitus, that is a complex one. To begin with, under what jurisdiction? Ancient Macedon was an autocracy, as E M Anson pointed out; “There was simply no government apart from the king. The king on his own authority determined what taxes and services were owed, controlled foreign policy, formed alliances with foreign states, declared war and made peace, was commander-in-chief of the armies, controlled the mines and forests, served as the chief religious official, transferred populations from one place to another, including adding to the population of existing cities, and founded cities. Most criminal charges were heard singly by the king or the king’s representatives.”

While theoretically the king had almost limitless power, in fact, his authority were constrained by the very nature of the actual government and the traditions of Macedonia – the King could not govern without the active consent of those around him, and the ultimate deterrent was the risk of upsetting those people, resulting in assassination or rebellion, which was common enough.

In his own time and place therefore, Alexander could not be charged with murder, nor was there anyone who could find him ‘guilty’. This was expressed in the extreme by the sophist Anaxarchus, who, seeking to console Alexander in his remorse said “...all the acts of a Great King should be considered just, first by himself, then by the rest of us.” i.e. that the King could do no wrong.[Arrian Anabasis IV.9].

Curtius [VIII.2.12], but no other source, thus making it doubtful, reports that the army assembled of its own accord and condemned Cleitus ! ( however, only the King could summon such an assembly).

To his credit, Alexander knew that what he had done was wrong, and showed conspicuous remorse, but just how genuine this was, and how much motivated by the need not to offend those around him for fear of retribution by assassination or possible rebellion, each Pothosian will doubtless have their own opinion.

Presumably then, this thread means ‘murder’ by modern standards, but again, which jurisdiction? Since the Forum’s official language is English, I shall assume that the standards of the English-speaking world shall apply, not least because that is what I am most familiar with !
Murder is defined at common law as:
1. Unlawful - not justifiable homicide, capital punishment following a legal trial, killing of enemy soldiers in war etc
2. Killing – actually causing the death of the victim, called the ‘actus reas’
3. of a human – a foetus was not considered human until after birth, nor can one 'murder' an animal.
4. by another human – thus excluding suicide as ‘self-murder’
5. with malice aforethought, also called the ‘mens rea’ or state of mind. – this used to be a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that some time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. Nowadays, all that is required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "intention."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "intention" are:
i. Intent to actually kill,which may be on the spur of the moment.
ii. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii. Reckless indifference to a high risk to human life, or
iv. Intent to commit a dangerous crime

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon, or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet."

Many American jurisdictions divide murder by degrees, but not those following English legal traditions. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally, second degree murder is common law murder, and first degree is an aggravated form. The aggravating factors of first degree murder are a specific intent to kill, premeditation, and deliberation. In addition, murder committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait as well as some other factors,are also treated as first degree murder.

The distinction between first- and second- degree murder exists, for example, in Canada. Additionally, third-degree murder is recognized in some U.S. jurisdictions.

With all this in mind, we can now assess whether Alexander committed murder. He certainly committed the act, by spearing Cleitus to death, and intended to kill, and the ‘deadly weapon’ rule certainly applies. The two elements of murder – the ‘actus reas’ and ‘mens rea’- are certainly present, and therefore he is ‘prima facie’ guilty of murder under English law, and guilty of second degree murder under American law.

The next question that arises is whether he has a viable defence to the charge. Although laws vary by country, there are circumstances of exclusion that are common in many legal systems:

• Self-defence: acting in self-defence or in defence of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defence killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place. In the case of self-defence it is called a "justifiable homicide".
• Manslaughter :Unlawful killings without malice or any intent, such as an accidental killing.
• Provocation: Is generally no longer allowed as a defence, though in some common law countries, it can be a partial defense to a charge of murder which acts by converting what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter (this is voluntary manslaughter because the intent to kill is present, which is more severe than involuntary manslaughter)
• Suicide : Does not constitute murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.
• Killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes.

Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than being found guilty of murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment as to right and wrong at the time. Insanity, Depression, PTSD and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.

Being under the influence of alcohol/drugs is never a defence at all ( it would make murder too easy! )

Probably the only possible defence usable by Alexander, assuming it is allowable, might be ‘provocation’, but then the question arises as to whether a reasonable man would be so provoked in like circumstances as to intentionally kill a close friend, to which the answer would almost invariably be no.

I’m afraid that Agesilaos’ two defences would likely fail. The lack of ‘Pre-meditation’, which would aggravate the murder, as we have seen, would still leave Alexander guilty under an English type jurisdiction, or guilty of second degree murder in the U.S. or Canada. The ‘natural balance of his mind being disturbed’ might be a mitigation as to sentence, but there does not appear to be any evidence that Alexander was suffering from an abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing the killing, i.e. that he was temporarily unable to tell right from wrong. Mental retardation, or injury through disease or accident such as PTSD might also constitute diminished responsibility, which might be mitigation for Philip Arrhidaeus, but not his half-brother Alexander!

Indeed far from showing abnormal mind, Alexander’s immediate remorse and horror at his act are proof that he was in his right mind at the time, and diminished responsibility would not succeed.

As to murder being Alexander’s ‘modus operandi’ or usual method, he killed quite a number of his fellow Makedones right from the beginning. During the first year of Alexander’s reign, the Macedonian nobleman Attalus was murdered on the new monarch’s orders as were Amyntas and the brothers of the Lyncestian Alexander. Parmenio, the father of the convicted Philotas, was also murdered on Alexander’s orders. Later in Carmania, Cleander, Heracon, and Agathon, all Macedonian commanders,(In addition to six hundred regular soldiers, who were condemned on Alexander’s authority alone ), and the hetairoi Menander. To these should be added the ‘judicial murders’ of Philotas, Alexander the Lynkestian and Kallisthenes. I’ve probably left out a few, but those are certainly enough to make Alexander a ‘serial killer’ by today’s standards!! He was also certainly a 'War Criminal' by today's rules of warfare.

But as L.P. Hartley said, “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there", and by his own standards, and the standards of the time, Alexander tried to be fair and just and was no ‘evil tyrant’, at least to his own people.

Keeping all the above in mind, Pothosians are now in a position to make a judgement call and vote - I did say it was complex !

I would ague that far from demonstrating a normal state of mind Alexander's immediate response, attempted suicide, demonstrates that he was unbalanced; once the balance of his mind returned he fell into his extravagant remorse, but if this is only a plea in mitigation, I shall set aside my battered hat and retire to Pommeroy's for a glass or three of Chateau Thames Embankment and a small cigar, the Bollard can make the plea.

Rumpole, a positive picture of a lawyer? And the source of most of my legal misapprehensions

Just one question, I am not clear where 'modus operandi' arguments fit, can it be used to make a murder charge or is just a prosecution plea for a more severe sentence? Is it even a real legal concept, I have vague notions of it applying in mafia trials but am not certain. That was the only thing left a little unclear, looks like I ought to change my vote...

When I worked in London, I sometimes had cause to brief the 'real' Rumpole. While most of the characters were caricatures of their models, the Rumpole character was entirely true to life. Some have wondered why an Australian actor was picked to play Horace Rumpole, but it was because he had the 'real' Rumpole's mannerisms, character and even looks down to a tee - an uncanny likeness in fact......I have several 'Rumpole' anecdotes of my own......

By 'modus operandi', I believe what you are referring to is Similar-fact evidence. As you can imagine, whether or not similar past behaviour is admissible can be controversial if it is prejudicial to a defendant. However, this is admissible where its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect.

Similar fact evidence is only admissible in exceptional circumstances:
A strong degree of probative force is required.
There must be such a striking similarity such that the only possible inference is that the conclusion is true, or that it has been concocted by witnesses, or that it is a sheer coincidence.

When admitted into evidence, it goes to guilt or innocence of the accused, as well as being relevant when it comes to sentencing.

Agesilaos wrote:

I would argue that far from demonstrating a normal state of mind Alexander's immediate response, attempted suicide, demonstrates that he was unbalanced;

'unbalanced', especially momentarily, is not the issue here ( and one wonders how genuine that suicide attempt, if it happened at all, was - Alexander must have known that those around him would stop him.) Arrian evidently does not think there was a suicide attempt: " Most writers, however, say nothing of this......"

Murder can be, and often is, committed in a high state of emotion from e.g. jealousy, hatred, or as here, rage. That does not suffice to meet the criteria for 'diminished responsibility' - that Alexander was suffering from an abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing the killing, i.e. that he was temporarily unable to tell right from wrong through partial or temporary insanity/mental illness, at the actual time of the killing. and not as a result of the murder, as here. This is only a partial defence in mitigation at best, and is not accepted at all in many English-speaking jurisdictions e.g. Ireland and some U.S. states such as California.

Even Rumpole himself might have found it an impossible task to establish such a (partial) defence in the face of Alexander's repeated admissions/confessions of murder:
" Again and again he called himself the murderer of his friends...."[Arrian IV.9] showing that he well understood the nature of his act, and right from wrong.

You forget Horace's most powerful weapon...the case come out as John Mortimer wants them to; the authorial miracle might be Alexander's only chance, all the same he might get off in England on the grounds of his popularity (like Harry Rednapp, although tax evasion is a bit different from murder!) in America due to his wealth, and in Russia if Putin puts in a word. Good job he was above the Law or rather, like Judge Dredd he was the Law.

The Anglo-Saxon position seems clear, then but how about under ancient jurisdictions Athenian and Roman? Anyone care to comment, other than Xenophon, we ought let the other members have their say first,eh? Bear in mind that he can be considered as either a citizen or a foreigner in both these cases...got to get off this teaching course...discuss.

I voted manslaughter, my reasoning being he was to drunk and so was Cleitos and both didn't think clearly. My choice, however, is not a legal definition, but more of the "what I think on the matter". Obviously, I agree with a position that Alexander can't be judged by the modern times standards in the murder of Cleitos in particular and most of this other deeds in general.

However, imho, there might be different reasons as well. Note, I am talking about the reasons not the verdict. It's a bit different but...

1) deliberate indent to kill - what if Alexander wanted to get rid of Cleitos? He knew that repetition of Philotas affair was too dangerous. Surely, the accident could have been arranged but there was always a danger for it being exposed or going not according to the plan. Killing in a drunken rage in a way absolved Alexander, it was a Macedonian way....He himself was almost killed in the similar manner by Philip during Philip's marriage to Cleopatra. Maybe even this old incident, in some twisted way, gave Alexander the idea of how to get rid of Cleitos. Without a doubt, the king knew how to push his general's buttons. I am quite sure it was not the first time that Cleitos declared that Alexander owned his glory to Philip's achievements. Alexander could have simply pretend he was drunk, surely he knew how to play the role. Is this theory too far-fetched? Sounds like one not it's not completely impossible.
2) second degree murder is also possible, Alexander just wanted to scare Cleitos away, not to kill, he just didn't measure his deadly strike well, being inebriated and such.
3) same goes for justifiable homicide and judicial murder; Alexander, being drunk, could have thought Cleitos might harm him and for sure he felt that his authority as a King was threatened.

Would any of the above fly as a defence in modern court? I doubt it. As for the Alexander's time period - we all know how it ended.

I wanted to add a small piece to my post above but didn't find a way to do it.

I don't know much/anything about the criminal law but in the business law there is often a clause in the business agreement that would specify what jurisdiction will be used in case of the dispute (when the arrangement transcends one jurisdiction). In some cases the jurisdiction will be determined by the place of business when the dispute arise, in our case - Persian empire. Maybe Alexander could have been charged (by the Army?) following the Macedonian/Athenian law but as a Persian King of Kings - he was absolutely above the law, the law in itself so the idea of him being guilty of any deed wouldn't ever arise.

I always wondered why no one (as far as I know) till now payed attention to the scene of the crime: people usually had an eye only for Alexander. But Plutarch and Curtius stressed very well that many other hetairoi were present: well, all of them tried to restrain Alexander and no one payed attention to Cleitus, except, in the end , Ptolemy, who pushed him outside the citadel (according to Arrian 4, 8, 9). Given that, let's consider what happened some weeks ago in the U.S.A.: a policeman killed an unarmed boy because he feared this boy would kill him. The judge declared this murder nonsuit (sorry, I'm very clumsy with [American] law and the words to express it) and the policeman was acquitted without criminal trial. Why then are we biased in our's judgement? Alexander felt himself prisoner like Darius and tried to defend himself. Besides, I think Alexander feared to be killed by someone of his friends (and they really did nothing to reassure him). Only AFTER Cleitus' murder he realized he was wrong, but too late. This interpretation also explains why Aristoboulos (according to Arrian) needed to tell explicity that only Cleitus was guilty (and no other hetairoi), because he returned in the banquet hall after Ptolemy's intervention. Some scholars thought Aristoboulos wanted to exculpate Alexander, but, IMHO, it's far more realistic my former interpretation.

If I understand correctly, hiphys, you are suggesting that as Alexander couldn't find his dagger, was being restrained by the Companions while no one was restraining Cleitus, and no one would call out the guard to defend him, he thought it was a conspiracy to kill him. This may well have been something which flashed into his mind and have further inflamed his temper, and it may also have been something he used to justify himself afterwards, but if he had seriously entertained the notion that it was a conspiracy, the direction of his conversation would have changed and it would have been reported in the sources. As it was though, he was completely focused on Cleitus and their particular argument, ut didn't accuse him of trying to kill him.

Delos, I don't think Alexander had any pre-meditated idea before the quarrel of killing Cleitus. He had no need to as he had already retired Cleitus from the front line by appointing him as satrap of Bactria. The idea of pre-meditation though comes from this passage in Curtius

He stormed into the vestibule of the royal quarters in uncontrollable fury. There he grabbed a spear from the guard on watch and stood at the doorway by which his dinner-guests had to exit. The others had left, and Cleitus was the last to come out, without a lamp. The king challenged him, and the tone of his voice testified to the appalling nature of his intent. Cleitus thought now not of his own anger, but only of the king's. He relied that he was Cleitus and that he was leaving the banquet. As he said this Alexander plunged the spear into his side and, bespattered with the dying man's blood, said to him: 'Now go and join Philip, Parmenion and Attalus!'

How long in legal terms does pre-meditation have to exist to be criminal? Here Alexander apparently has time to wait and plan to kill Cleitus.

Having said that though, Curtius' description differs so much from the other descriptions that it is difficult to wholly believe it, especially as it makes no mention of witnesses. What happened to the other companions?

Yes, Alexias, you understood very well: perhaps you'll think I'm a bit crazy , but I believe Alexander feared Cleitus would be able to kill him (while his Companions restrained him) precisely because our sources didn't reported it (for reticence?).I admit this is an argument very hard to support, but it's possible the sources cutted out the idea of conspiracy. It was safer afterwards to blame only Cleitus for his misfortune: being dead he couldn't excuse himself! Even Curtius, who is the source more biased here against Alexander, tells us "the Macedonians formally declared that Cleitus death was justified (8, 2, 12)". He adds indeed they did this "to ease his [ie. of Alexander] feeling of shame over the killing", but, who knows?