Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 16
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 16

by Amanda


  6. Death of Philip

  The wedding ceremony was to take place at the original capital of

  Macedonian, Aegae. Once peace in the Balkans was secured with the

  marriage of Alexander of Epirus to his daughter, Philip intended to set off

  with his Macedonian and allied forces on the planned invasion of Asia

  Minor. In accordance with custom the king first consulted the Delphic

  Oracle to learn whether he would defeat the Persians. The answer he

  received was as follows: ‘Wreathed is the bull. All is done. There is also

  the one who will smite him.’ As on many other occasions, Pythia’s words

  were subjected to conflicting interpretations. For Philip it implied the

  slaughter of Persians like the slaughter of sacrificial beasts. Diodorus,

  however, sees in these words a clear prophesy of Philip’s own death. It

  used to be believed that the wedding between Alexander of Epirus and

  Philip’s daughter Cleopatra was held in the summer of 336, but according

  to more recent research into the chronology of events concerning

  Alexander the Great’s reign it seems more likely that the wedding took

  place in the autumn of that year, perhaps in October, though some scholars

  very precisely date Philip’s death to have occurred on 25th September. The

  wedding took place the day before the Macedonian king’s death. At dawn

  the following day games were to be held at the city’s theatre, which was

  then filled to capacity with guests from Macedonia and Greece. Philip

  approached the theatre accompanied by his son and heir as well as by his

  son-in-law; having instructed his bodyguards to keep some distance away,

  so that he could show the Greeks friends and allies gathered there how

  much he trusted them. If archaeological assumptions regarding the

  location of Philip’s palace at Aegae are correct, it was just some 60 metres

  from the theatre. On the way the Macedonian king had fallen a short

  distance behind his companions. That was when a young man from among

  his bodyguards called Pausanias ran up and thrust his sword through Philip

  thus killing him. The assassin next started to flee, but before he could get

  62 Plu., Alex. , 9.12-14; Just., 9.7. Bosworth 1988, pp. 22-23.

  80

  Chapter II

  to his horse, he stumbled on a vine and fell. This allowed the royal guards

  to catch up and instantly spear Pausanias to death. Among the guards

  Diodorus mentions Alexander’s later companions: Leonnatus, Perdiccas

  and Attalus.63

  In a letter written to Darius III four years later Alexander accused the

  Persian king of dispatching the assassins who killed his father.

  Alexander’s most famous modern biographer, W.W. Tarn, calls this

  accusation – which today would be termed indirect perpetration of murder

  – the official Macedonian court’s version.64 Unfortunately we do not

  know when this version emerged. Certainly none of the ancient sources

  relating what happened at Aegae in 336 mentions it. Therefore it could

  have merely been invented for propaganda purposes in the war against

  Darius III in 332. In describing the events of the autumn of 336 the ancient

  authors devote a lot of attention to Philip’s assassin, Pausanias. Fairly

  typically for the Macedonian court, it was apparently a sordid homosexual

  affair that drove this bodyguard to commit the crime. For Pausanias,

  originally from the Upper Macedonian land of Orestis, had in his early

  youth been Philip’s lover. When Philip found another homosexual lover,

  also by the name of Pausanias, the future assassin offended his rival in

  such a way as to make him commit suicide. But before committing suicide

  the other Pausanias related everything to Attalus, the uncle of Cleopatra.

  Later at a banquet Attalus let Pausanias the future assassin get drunk and,

  according to Justin, together with other guests proceeded to rape him.

  Diodorus, on the other hand, claims Attalus had his muleteers gang rape

  him. This most probably happened in 337 or at the start of 336, not long

  before the departure of the first Macedonian expeditionary corps to Asia

  Minor. The rape victim complained to Philip, but the king did not punish

  Attalus, who was then very much a court favourite as the uncle and

  guardian of the king’s newly wed wife Cleopatra. Instead Philip tried to

  appease Pausanias with gifts and promotion to the rank of a somatophylax

  (personal bodyguard). Now Pausanias’s anger turned against the king and,

  what is worse, he recalled from the teachings of the philosopher

  Hermocrates the thought that one can acquire the highest fame by killing

  someone who had achieved the greatest things. Thus personal revenge and

  63 Diod., 16.91-94; Just., 9.6; Plu., Alex. , 10.5. Date in October: Bosworth 1980, pp.

  45-46; Hatzopoulos 1982a. Date on 25 September: Grzybek 1990, pp. 21-28;

  Hauben 1992, p. 146. Careers of Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus: Heckel 1992,

  pp. 91-106, 134-163, 180-183. Archaeology of Aegae: Andronicus 1984, pp. 38-47.

  64 Arr., An. , 2.14.5; Curt., 4.1.12. Tarn 1948, I, p. 3.

  The Heir to the Throne

  81

  a desire for fame are the most frequently mentioned motives behind the

  murder.65

  The ancient authors also mention a story originating from other sources

  now difficult to unequivocally identify which claims that Olympias

  persuaded Pausanias to commit the murder and that Alexander at least

  knew if not actually actively encouraged the assassin too. Olympias

  allegedly even paid homage to the dead assassin’s body by placing a gold

  wreath on it, arranging a funeral with sacrificial offerings and offering the

  assassin’s sword to Apollo. The fact that Pausanias had had a prepared

  escape – the horses were also allegedly left for him by Olympias – would

  imply the existence of a conspiracy against Philip. Thus modern historians

  have suggested that Pausanias was not arrested and put on trial but

  instantly killed for fear that he would reveal the names of other

  conspirators. 66 However, it is difficult not to get the impression that

  attempts to establish who would have been party to this real or presumed

  conspiracy are more to do with whether or not one believes in the

  culpability or innocence of Philip’s successor than with scrupulous

  analysis of very equivocal sources. Olympias’s involvement would seem

  plausible if we consider her very bad relationship with Philip and the very

  real sense of danger following Philip’s marriage to Cleopatra. After

  Philip’s death the successor’s mother, Olympias, gained a position of

  unquestioned authority, and the many times she showed ruthlessness

  clearly demonstrate that she was capable of any crime. The same

  arguments may be used to also implicate her son. Furthermore neither any

  of the Lyncestis princes nor anyone else from beyond Philip’s dynasty had

  enough authority to wrest control of the state from the Argeads, who had

  ruled it for centuries.67 Opponents of this theory point to the fact that

  Olympias has had an extremely bad press, presumably ever since her

  mortal enemy Cassander started inciting against her. Thus ancient authors

  found it easy to suspect
her of any crime. This was especially so as

  Olympias clearly breached the conventions regarding women of her time,

  and all the ancient authors relating the death of Philip were males with

  fairly conservative outlooks. However, neither she nor her son is

  65 Arist., Pol. , 1311b1-3; Diod., 16.93-94; Plu., Alex. , 10.5-6; Just., 9.6. Date: Fears 1975, p. 120; Mortensen 2007, p. 374, n. 15; Miller 2007, p. 138.

  66 Diod., 16.94.3; Plu., Alex. , 10.5-6; Just., 9.7. C.B. Welles, n. 2 to p. 101 in

  Diodorus in Loeb Series; Green 1974, p. 107. The strongest case for a conspiracy

  involving Olympias and Alexander: Worthington 2008, pp. 184-186.

  67 Köhler 1892, pp. 497-514; Hamilton 1965, pp. 120-122; Develin 1981; Carney

  1987, pp. 46-48; Badian 1963; Badian 2000, pp. 54-58; Corvisier 2002, pp. 268-

  269.

  82

  Chapter II

  implicated in Aristotle’s account of the assassination, which is the only

  extant version written by a contemporary and also an exceptionally

  valuable one on account of the philosopher’s excellent connections with

  Macedonian elites. Finally, the personal motive of the assassin is plausible

  and fully sufficient to explain this extreme action. 68 Of course such

  arguments, largely based on the silence of the only available contemporary

  source, can be dismissed, but only in the realms of speculation.

  Thus the case of Philip’s murder remains not entirely solved. We only

  know that Alexander was the greatest beneficiary of his father’s demise as

  he now inherited the throne, but that does not automatically make him a

  conspirator. 69 Not every inheritor resorts to murder, and fortuitous

  coincidences also occur in the lives of ordinary people, not only those of

  ruling families.

  68 Fears 1975; Ellis 1981; Burstein 1982, pp. 69-70; Borza 1990, p. 227; O’Brien

  1992, pp. 36-40; Hammond 1994, pp. 175-176; Briant 2002, p. 9; Mortensen 2007.

  69 Lane Fox 1973, pp. 21-25; Carney 2006, p. 39.

  CHAPTER III:

  THE NEW KING

  1. The takeover. Philip’s funeral

  In extant ancient sources there is no complete account of the critical events

  that occurred at the time of Philip’s murder. Remarks scattered here and

  there allow us to establish what happened though not necessarily the

  chronological order in which it occurred. It is not hard to imagine that

  immediately after Philip’s death there was chaos, but it did not last long.

  Alexander’s friends rallied to his support, most probably all – like

  Alexander of Lyncestis according to Arrian – armed as for battle to ensure

  his safety and thus also to declare their allegiance in his claim to the throne.

  Antipater, Philip’s oldest and most respected general and advisor,

  delivered a speech assuring the support of the Macedonian army, which

  was stationed in and around Aegae. Bearing in mind the might of the

  Macedonian army, one can assume that immediately after declaring their

  personal allegiance, Alexander’s supporters went to speak to the soldiers.

  It was most probably at a rally of soldiers that took place then – and not at

  a more formal meeting assumed by some modern historians but unknown

  to the ancient sources – that Alexander was declared king. It was also then

  that he would have personally promised to relieve his subjects of all duties

  other than military service. He would have then proclaimed the

  continuation of Philip’s policies, which had been so popular in Macedonia;

  symbolically this continuation was confirmed by keeping Philip’s coinage

  unchanged until 333. The situation must have been serious for Alexander

  to have thought it necessary to make such promises when the state’s

  finances were in such a sorry state – barely 60 talents in the treasury and

  200 or even 500 talents of debt left behind by Philip. In all certainty on the

  day of the assassination Alexander, before letting them leave, turned to the

  Greek dignitaries gathered at the theatre to appeal for their loyalty.1

  1 Arr., An. , 1.25.2, 7.9.6; Ps.-Callisth., 1.26; Diod., 17.2.2; POxy. 1798 = FGrH

  148 F1 with emendation as in Parson 1979. Wilcken 1967, pp. 61-62; Badian 1963;

  84

  Chapter III

  Although Alexander had been for a long time designated by Philip as

  his successor, this did not mean his ascension to the Macedonian throne

  was a matter of certainty. The rights to succession have been a hotly

  debated issue among modern historians, who correctly view this as part of

  a broader question of the Macedonian state’s constitution. This matter is

  worthy of attention not only because it explains changes in the historic

  process that occurred in 336 and at other times during Alexander’s reign,

  but also because of the relative popularity of the constitutionalist school in

  history of Macedonia, most notably represented by N.G.L. Hammond.

  This stance was first formulated in a German study of state law which

  described Macedonia under the Argeads and during the Hellenistic period

  as a constitutional monarchy. According to this study successors to the

  throne were either elected or their nominations were ratified in a legally

  defined way by an assembly of Macedonians. At times of war, especially

  when it was waged in a distant land, the Macedonian army would

  supposedly take over the rights of the Macedonian assembly. According to

  historians of the constitutionalist school this assembly also had the right to

  ratify international agreements and to try those accused of treason. In most

  situations, however, the Macedonians, though quite aware of their rights,

  allowed their monarchs to rule in an uninhibited way.2

  This theory is to a large extent based on the statement that Macedonian

  kings ruled oÙde b∂v, ¢ll¦ nÒmJ, which roughly translated means ‘not by

  force, but on the basis Macedonian law’ – words which Arrian has the

  philosopher Callisthenes say in a speech praising Macedonians. The other

  major pieces of evidence are four known cases of formal assemblies of the

  Macedonian army regarding legal issues: during the trial of Philotas in 330,

  on the Hyphasis in 326, at Opis in 324 and during the election of

  Alexander’s successor in 323. However, the greatest importance should be

  attached to the words Arrian attributes to Callisthenes as they allow for the

  interpretation of the other events. If Macedonia was ruled according to a

  set of laws that applied to everyone, not just the subjects, then we may

  assume that in 330 Alexander had Philotas tried by an assembly of soldiers

  as he himself did not have the right to condemn him for treason. Few

  Thompson 1982, p. 116; Bosworth 1988, pp. 25-26; Baynham 1994, p. 337; Le

  Rider 2003, pp. 48-63. Debts: Plu., mor. , 327d (after Onesicritus).

  2 Grainier 1931; Aymard 1950; Wilcken 1967, pp. 24, 61; Schachermeyr 1973, pp.

  34-36, 304-305, 492-497; Briant 1973, pp. 318-320; Ellis 1976, pp. 24-25;

  Hammond 1979, pp. 153, 160-162; Griffith 1979, pp. 389-392; Bosworth 1988, p.

  26; Hammond 1989, pp. 60-70; O’Brien 1992, p. 40; Hatzopoulos 1996, i, pp. 261-

  322; Hammond 1994, pp. 6-7, 37-38, 185-188; Worthington 2003, pp. 72-73;

  Rzepka 2006.

  The New King


  85

  words in the Greek language have more different meanings than nomos,

  the term used by Arrian. It can mean ‘custom’, ‘constitution’ or even

  ‘melody’. One of the meanings is obvious: ‘law’ and ‘constitutional norm’,

  but to assume that Arrian had this meaning in mind without knowing the

  strict legal context is dangerous. One hardly needs to mention that the

  encomium Callisthenes delivered in honour of Macedonians to officers of

  Alexander’s army did not concern matters of jurisprudence, which

  naturally require very precise legal language. If, on the other hand, we

  reject the notion that the word was intended to mean ‘law’ and

  ‘constitutional norm’, we demolish the methodological basis on which

  modern historians of ancient Macedonia have founded their constitutionalist

  theory. One also needs to remember that this speech, like generally all

  speeches in the works of ancient authors attributed to historical figures,

  does not relate the actual words uttered by the philosopher but words used

  by Arrian over half a millennium after the lives of Callisthenes and

  Alexander. Therefore it could be argued that we are referring to the views

  of an ancient author rather than the actual views of the historical figure he

  is writing about. Epideictic orations, which combined all the known

  resources, images, concepts and formulations used by orators, were very

  popular in Arrian’s day and so here we are probably dealing with a topos

  frequently appearing in Greek literature, one that contrasts force with law

  and custom. If that is the case, Alexander probably had Philotas tried by

  his soldiers not for legal reasons but for political ones (more on this in

  Chapter V.5). The decisions imposed on Alexander by his own army on

  the river Hyphasis and at Opis should be all together excluded from the

  debate over the Macedonian constitution as both were the rebellions of

  soldiers against their leader, but ones in which they did not so much want

  to dispose of him as to make him change decisions that happened to be

 

‹ Prev