Green on Alexander in Athens

[Nicator]

Hello All,
Green alludes to Alexander being given special treatment by the Athenians during his visit after Chaeronea. Surprisingly, he does not elaborate as to why. Why did the Athenians provide a statue of Alexander, when only Philip was done by proxy. This seems to me obvious. The Athenians wanted to send a message to Philip (which undoubtedly he receivedGǪloud and clear), that Alexander was conspiring behind his back to take the throne from him. Not surprisingly, Alexander and Philip had their falling out at the same time. Comments please?Later Nicator

[beausefaless]

I'll take a guess, your thinking the Athenians wanted revenge for their loss at Chaeronea and what better way than to use a physiological ploy to create chaos and civil war within Macedonia, what else could they do? Obviously it was a bad move, Alexander got his revenge.(If you can't beat 'em, join them) or was it respect for Alexander because he led the Thessalian cavalry and slaughtered the Theban Sacred Band, I doubt it. You make a good point.

[agesilaos]

There seems to have been an attack of Oliver Stone conspiracyphilia; the anti-Macedonian party was ousted after Chaeronea so the people voting for the statue were the likes of Phokion who beleived in accomodation with Philip. It is not unusual to praise the father by honouring the son and Philip had sent Alexander as head of the embassy precisely to enhance his status. He was surely proud of him. The rift came later, due in no small part to the side-lining of Olympias and Alexander's failure to understand that he was still secure as the Heir Apparent.Incidentally it was the Companion cavalry that did for the Sacred Band; it would have been an insult of the first order to place the Prince in command of allies.

[beausefaless]

There were five ilac of Thessalian cavalry on the left flank and six ilac of Macedonian cavalry on the right flank for a total of two thousand horse. The remainder Of Philip's army was the phalanx of approximately thirty thousand heavy infantry.(Dodge128)

[Nicator]

I'm sure Philip was proud of his son, but the efficacy of Alexander at Chaeronea and the statuehead must have sent chills down his spine. Clearly, Philip wasn't ready to give up his kingship now, or in the near future. Alexander's skills daunted his own now, and he must have deep down resented him for it. It wouldn't be beyond the Athenians to try to get inside of his head by creating a statuehead of Alexander at the same time to show Alexander as an equal to Philip. It was only a few months after Chaeronea before the estrangement between father and son reared its ugly head. I would add, that where Philip's last days are concerned, conspiracy theory is primo face'...did I say that right? I think you get my point though. later Nicator

[aen]

Karl,He was leading Companion Cavalry, probably at the head of the Agema, but there were Thessalians in support beside/behind him.It's interesting to note Philip placing such a weight of horse on one side. Although details of the battle are hazy, the disposition would seem to indicate an intended flanking movement from left across - much as is speculated as having taken place once the Athenians were lured forward and pinned.I visited the field some time ago. Quite an eerily beautiful place. The monument to the Sacred Band still stands, but way off on the Athenian side of the field - a colossal piece of work. Sadly a train-track runs straight through the point where they probably made their last stand. Poor buggers would have had no cover at all from the Macedonian horse. I doubt it was a pretty sight.Laters. A.

[agesilaos]

That the details are hazy is an understatement; our sources serve us poorly. Diodoros has the longest account with no dispositions numbers or troop types noted ,other than that Philip commanded selected men 16. 86. Indeed the account of Alexander's attack reads more like an infantry fight. Plutarch adds little while Justin says the allies outnumbered Philip. Philip's numbers are extrapolated from 16.85 where they are 30,000 foot and 2,000 horse including allies and mercenaries. The allies must have had a rough parity in heavy foot otherwise they would not have risked battle, Plutarch Demosthenes says that aside from the Athenians and the Thebans 15000 foot and 2000 horse were raised but this leaves little for the major players to contribute if Diodoros is right and the defenders were weaker than Philip; the problem is moot if Justin is to be believed but that in itself is contrary to human nature!For the course of the battle Polyaenos supplies a couple of notices about a feigned retreat on the right and the adoption of close order. Aside from this the reconstruction is down to the imagination of the writer and in them all the shadow of Alexander's battles in Asia looms large.One final point for Nicator; after his description of Chaeroneia Plutarch says that Philip was swollen with pride for his son and rejoiced to hear him referred to as King and Philip as their general; not a situation of mutual jealousy, the break came later over Kleopatra. You are right about the insincerity of the Athenian honours, however, Demosthenes moved the awards of citizenship, rather like Alex Ferguson sponsoring Arsene Wenger.

[beausefaless]

Goes without saying, companion cavalry always rode with Alexander, tell us something we don't know. I love what Plutarch says after every one's done patting each other on the back after the battle of Chaeroneia and I quote;"But the disorders of his family, chiefly caused by his new marriages and attachments (the troubles that began in the women's chambers spreading, so to say, to the whole kingdom), raised various complaints and differences between them, which the violence of Olympias, a woman of a jealous and implacable temper, made wider, by exasperating Alexander against his father. Among the rest, this accident contributed most to their falling out. At the wedding of Cleopatra, whom Philip fell in love with and married, she being much too young for him, her uncle Attalus in his drink desired the Macedonians would implore the gods to give them a lawful successor to the kingdom by his niece. This so irritated Alexander, that throwing one of the cups at his head, "You villain," said he, "what, am I then a bastard?" Then Philip, taking Attalus's part, rose up and would have run his son through; but by good fortune for them both, either his over-hasty rage, or the wine he had drunk, made his foot slip, so that he fell down on the floor. At which Alexander reproachfully insulted over him: "See there," said he, "the man who makes preparations to pass out of Europe into Asia, overturned in passing from one seat to another." After this debauch, he and his mother Olympias withdrew from Philip's company, and when he had placed her in Epirus, he himself retired into Illyria".

[xxx]

Philip sent Alexander to Athens because it was far too dangerous for him to go. He was in effect, showing good faith to the Athenians, by 'honoring' them with the importance of sending his only capable son. Philip did however, know Alexander was 'expendable' if something went wrong in Athens. Besides, that left time for him to get it on with Kleopatra in the Prince's absence. Philip, like his son, always had more than one reason for doing any one thing.

[Nicator]

Thanks to all for the detailed info.Yours,
Nick

[agesilaos]

Ingenius but Alexander was far from expendable, who was the reserve? Arrhidaios!? No Philip sent Alexander to give him experience of political dealing he is grooming the boy at this stage showing his trust ,ready to abandon the mother and hoping to keep the son by empowering him. Multiple motivation certainly but slightly different in my view.

[Tre]

You don't put your son at the head of the calvary against the Sacred Band unless you are willing to sacrifice him if required either. Philip was still a younger man and had no plans for an heir to replace him at that point. People always assume Philip was trying so hard to have an heir to replace him and therefore the empire would continue, but it was not that at all. As King he had to produce an heir so he could continue to go to war, and what mattered to Argead Kings, was to be the best King, not to produce the best King. It was all in the now for them, not the afterlife. When trying to figure out Argead politics, you have to consider that a King had no use for a full grown heir, indeed, when an heir became of age, he became a definite danger to keep around. Also, Alexander was not the 'only' heir available - Amyntas was under far better 'control' and Arrhidaeos was no danger at all. No one would have thought anyone, other than Alexander himself, was good enough to replace himself - Philip was more than wise enough to have figured that out for himself. Think of it as a 50/50 roll of the dice - if Alexander died, he could mourn him as a hero and be rid of a potential threat to his kingship, and if he didn't, he could appear to honor him to hold off the inevitable confrontation that he knew was coming. Straight out, Philip knew that he was going to cause a huge rift between himself and his son if he choose to marry Cleopatra. He made his choice - and it wasn't Alexander.Philip was far more ingenious than people give him credit for even now - even in our own day, we believe the PR he wished to put forward, rather than actually analyzing what he was really doing. Regards,Tre

[karen]

Hi Tre et al:Tre, your argument would make sense to me except for one thing -- Philip sent Parmenion to Athens also, the man he said (whenever he said it) was the only real general he'd ever found. When he had such ambitious plans of conquest, would he have been willing to risk *both* his best sub-general and a cavalry commander who'd just proved himself so well? That I doubt.I think his willingness to send the pair to Athens was based on his knowing, and his knowing that the Athenians knew, that having just trounced them at Chaironea, he was in an easy position to take brutal revenge on the city if anything should happen to either of them.As for the Athenians honouring Alexander over Philip to create tensions between the two, I can see them doing that; it would have been a very clever move indeed, because Philip couldn't even protest it, or say something like, "Now put up a bigger statue of me!" without coming across as tyrannical and foolish. At the same time, you can't open a rift where there isn't the potential for one already. If Philip and Alexander had completely trusted each other, they could have laughed it off together, "Look at those silly Athenians trying to divide and conquer us, as if!"So there was much deviousness on both sides...Love & peace,
Karen

[Tre]

Hello Karen:Tre, your argument would make sense to me except for one thing -- Philip sent Parmenion to Athens also, the man he said (whenever he said it) was the only real general he'd ever found. When he had such ambitious plans of conquest, would he have been willing to risk *both* his best sub-general and a cavalry commander who'd just proved himself so well? That I doubt.He had to send someone Karen, and he couldn't send himself - that would have been idiotic. Kill the King kill Macedon. Alexander survived Chaeronea, now he had to do something with him, so he sent him to Athens because he planned on doing things he did not want the Prince around to see, i.e. making alliances with powerful families who didn't care for the Prince, i.e. Attalus. He could hardly send Alexander alone, he sent him with his closest ally who would have kept tabs on what the Prince was up to in Athens. Alexander gave Macedonians a good image - he was literate and articulate. And don't ever think anyone outside of the King was not expendable. However, Philip did not think either would be killed, but if they were, he had Attalus and others.I think his willingness to send the pair to Athens was based on his knowing, and his knowing that the Athenians knew, that having just trounced them at Chaironea, he was in an easy position to take brutal revenge on the city if anything should happen to either of them.Of course.As for the Athenians honouring Alexander over Philip to create tensions between the two, I can see them doing that; it would have been a very clever move indeed, because Philip couldn't even protest it, or say something like, "Now put up a bigger statue of me!" without coming across as tyrannical and foolish. At the same time, you can't open a rift where there isn't the potential for one already. If Philip and Alexander had completely trusted each other, they could have laughed it off together, "Look at those silly Athenians trying to divide and conquer us, as if!"This remark I don't understand - the Athenians did not honor Alexander over his father, they honored him as well as his father.

[Nicator]

Hi Tre,Renault state it was Parmenion and Alexander, Green provides Antipater, and some other general who served both Philip and Alexander well, with Alexander...who is to be believed here. Originally, I wrote it with Parmenion, and then changed to Antipater(holding Green in a bit higher esteem as a source than Renault).Nick