pothos.org

Trogus(Justin) mentions Philip divores Olympias in order to marry Cleopatra...Was this an institutional option for Macedonians, or a latter day interpretation implying Olympias was no longer in favour by Philip?I was under the impression from what I've read, Macedonians practiced polygamy, and as such divorce wasn't necessary!I apologise if this has been discussed by the forum previously, my 'potho' search engine is currently in need of a tune up...( attempt to be funny~! )Thanks to anyone that may respond.Cheers!

This is an error by Justin or his source. Athenians misinterpreted what happened with Olympias and Philip by confusing their culture with Macedonian. As Macedonian Kings could and did have multiple wives, unlike the Athenian Greeks, it was not necessary for him to divorce Olympias. That his marriage to Cleopatra diminished her standing as Philip's #1 wife, hers by right of her son Alexander, seems evident however, and also that Alexander's own star was sinking with hsi father as well. Regards,Tre

Hi Tre,
yes, I quite agree with you regarding the'divorce' being an Athenian concept. I thought perhaps,due to Olympias' supposed extra marital relationship with a snake/god, there may have been a need to officialy drop her and Alexander from prominance at the Macedonian court.As such, according to Justin, Philip no longer saw Alex as his son.But, i still can't see the need to divorce, and if indeed he really believed in her adultry, presumably he would have elimenated her there and then as well as Alexander.just my thoughts!cheers!

Hi Smitty,I know what you mean...I have to confess that I have never read Justin, just reports in more recent books about what he says. As far as I can tell, any tale of Olympias having an 'affaire' with a snake/god is later propaganda - her association with snakes as cult animals for Dionysiac (or other) mysteries would probably not have been of any concern to Philip.So you could be right, if the anti-Olympias propaganda were from a contemporary time. I have never entirely agreed with Tre about the extent to which Olympias and/or Alexander were intentionally 'sidelined' by Philip; but I can't argue with the fact that they might have seen it that way. At the same time, I think we're all agreed that there was never any 'divorce', as such.All the bestMarcus

Plutarch's mention of Alexander not resembling his father but his mother, Olympias' removal as his most important wife with his marriage to Cleopatra, the incident at Philip's wedding where Attalus refers to Alexander as being illegitimate, etc, suggest that there were rumors out that there was some question about Alexander's legitimacy at the time and where he stood with Philip. It did not matter if Alexander was incredibly talented if it could be made out he was not an Argead. Therefore if Philip chose to exile or send him to a remote post, the Persians and other Greek enemies of Philip would have found a disinherited male Argead with no blood ties to the clan useless as a weapon against Philip. Although I know Marcus disagrees with me as to how Philip felt about his son and his placement as an heir, he was certainly 'behaving badly' toward his son after his return from Athens.Regards,Tre