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