Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Nicator »

sean_m wrote:
lysis56 wrote:I was reading this thread, as this issue has always fascinated me. In the end, histories, theories aside Alexander ran an army. That required rules and the application of discipline else, well, we all know what happens when insubordination occurs... Philotas, a very highly ranked officer, a general with a long record of service in that army had the duty to report, as one would in any army, but especially when it involves so serious an issue as a possible conspiracy, i.e., mutiny, etc. re high up's in the command. If in fact, the account about Philotas already knowing of the possible conspiracy against Alexander, yet not reporting such to him or anyone else of equal command, esp. security officers, would be a serious breach of military protocol. If anyone has ever served in the military they will know this. History books, discussion on websites among scholars, etc., is one thing, the reality of command with a real time military in the field in an active arena is another.
If you have not yet read it, you may enjoy John Lee's book on the Ten Thousand, which explores how Greek armies functioned without many of the things which modern soldiers expect such as a dense chain of command, a formal system of regulations and punishments, and so on. Even under the Amphipolis Code, the Macedonian army was rather loosely regulated. On the other hand, monarchies tend to insist that any threat against the king be taken seriously.

One area where modern armies might provide insight is that when a system of punishments is harsh and inflexible, but people are expected to use judgement in what to report to it and what to handle informally, they often make mistakes. I don't think that Philotas was the only Macedonian who heard loose talk about killing the king and decided to show the culprits mercy.
Though, I don't disagree with your assessment of the "rather loosely regulated" comment, I would only add that the army of Philip of Macedon was systematized to a degree not before witnessed in the ancient world. And that that high level of organization was required to perform at the level displayed at Issus, Guagamela, and Hydaspes.

It would be interesting to see how great of an influence this systematized organization had on subsequent armies of later empires...like the Roman legions, for instance.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
sean_m
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by sean_m »

And I guess we could bring in the military inscription from Amphipolis, and what kind of army it is describing. I am some personal difficulties right now and I don't have energy for a nice juicy talk about Macedonian armies! I hope to have some things to talk about in the fall. But I am convinced that assuming that any ancient institution was as formalized and rule-bound as a 21st century American federal bureaucracy (such as the U.S. Army) is not helpful ...

I have a list of some places to find the Greek of the Amphipolis inscription, and one translation, listed in a project that I am not yet ready to publicize.

(I was just reading Maurice, and I notice that book XII.B faithfully repeats Arrian/Asclepiodotus/Aelian on where the psiloi can be placed in relation to the hoplitai ... some of those Macedonian practices had a long life!)
My blog (Warning: may contain up to 95% non-Alexandrian content, rated shamelessly philobarbarian by 1 out of 1 Plutarchs)
sean_m
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by sean_m »

Also, in terms of organization, even modern bureaucratic armies and navies have two broad strategies: some rely on orders from the top through a hierarchy to the individual combatants, and others rely on giving the individual combatants general directions and training them to solve the problems in front of them in a way which reinforces what the other combatants are doing. Soldiers and sailors have been arguing about which approach is best since the eighteenth century.

John Lee makes a case that the Ten Thousand, for example, organized their camp from the bottom up: each group of messmates (syntrapezoi) found a way of picking a camp spot, getting water and firewood, tending the horses and donkeys, buying food, and cooking dinner which worked for them. Nobody told a group of men that they had to live and eat together. Nobody told them where to camp (where a modern army would assign each company a place to camp, the captain of the company would tell the platoons were to camp, and the lieutenant of each platoon would tell the sections where to camp, all according to a written policy). Nobody outside the group had any control over who did what, and if the group created rules such as "at least one of us will watch the fire at all times," those rules had no force over anyone else. His view of army life is more like a club of amateur athletes heading to a tournament than Apple getting ready to launch a new product.
My blog (Warning: may contain up to 95% non-Alexandrian content, rated shamelessly philobarbarian by 1 out of 1 Plutarchs)
User avatar
Jeanne Reames
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:44 am
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Jeanne Reames »

There's a series of articles about this topic. At the risk of sounding arrogant and citing myself, see the link below. I note it because I cite the academic "conversation" in articles about the Philotas Affair. Waldemar was replying to Badian's, who was responding to Tarn. Rubinsohn write in response to both, and Adams in response to all, then mine. That's sorta the chronology of the conversation. We all came to somewhat different conclusions.

In chronological order: Tarn (1948) 270ff.; a response from Badian (1960) 324-38; a response partially to Tarn, partially to Badian, Rubinsohn (1977) 409-20; and a response largely to Badian, Heckel (1977) 9-21. Lindsay Adams' article from 2003, just before mine, "The Episode of Philotas: An Insight."

https://www.academia.edu/7364786/Crisis ... ir...Again
----
Dr. Jeanne Reames
Director, Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Graduate Studies Chair
University of Nebraska, Omaha
287 ASH; 6001 Dodge Street
Omaha NE 68182
http://jeannereames.net/cv.html
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Xenophon »

A very thoughtful, and logical analysis of the matter. Thank you for posting the link.... :D
sean_m
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by sean_m »

Jeanne Reames wrote:There's a series of articles about this topic. At the risk of sounding arrogant and citing myself, see the link below. I note it because I cite the academic "conversation" in articles about the Philotas Affair.
I have never seen anything wrong with citing oneself to avoid rewriting something that one spent dozens of hours wording as carefully as possible ... it only gets dodgy when its used to avoid defending a position which is controversial. (I think we have all read books by someone who is known for their unusual opinion on a topic, and cites their earlier publications to support statements in later ones, but does not address the criticisms of those publications which others have made in the meantime ... even a couple of sentences of "some people say this[1], and I now I would prefer to say that ..." or "some people say that[2], but I do not share their assumption that ..." can make a big difference).

Citing an article for its list of influential publications on a topic definitely qualifies as "saving time."
My blog (Warning: may contain up to 95% non-Alexandrian content, rated shamelessly philobarbarian by 1 out of 1 Plutarchs)
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Nicator »

sean_m wrote:
Jeanne Reames wrote:There's a series of articles about this topic. At the risk of sounding arrogant and citing myself, see the link below. I note it because I cite the academic "conversation" in articles about the Philotas Affair.
I have never seen anything wrong with citing oneself to avoid rewriting something that one spent dozens of hours wording as carefully as possible ... it only gets dodgy when its used to avoid defending a position which is controversial. (I think we have all read books by someone who is known for their unusual opinion on a topic, and cites their earlier publications to support statements in later ones, but does not address the criticisms of those publications which others have made in the meantime ... even a couple of sentences of "some people say this[1], and I now I would prefer to say that ..." or "some people say that[2], but I do not share their assumption that ..." can make a big difference).

Citing an article for its list of influential publications on a topic definitely qualifies as "saving time."
Even controversial quotes are allowed. As long as they've been properly explained as such. For example, Green's extrapolative approach to the histories are source based, but take leaps of inference, nonetheless.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Nicator »

sean_m wrote:Also, in terms of organization, even modern bureaucratic armies and navies have two broad strategies: some rely on orders from the top through a hierarchy to the individual combatants, and others rely on giving the individual combatants general directions and training them to solve the problems in front of them in a way which reinforces what the other combatants are doing. Soldiers and sailors have been arguing about which approach is best since the eighteenth century.

John Lee makes a case that the Ten Thousand, for example, organized their camp from the bottom up: each group of messmates (syntrapezoi) found a way of picking a camp spot, getting water and firewood, tending the horses and donkeys, buying food, and cooking dinner which worked for them. Nobody told a group of men that they had to live and eat together. Nobody told them where to camp (where a modern army would assign each company a place to camp, the captain of the company would tell the platoons were to camp, and the lieutenant of each platoon would tell the sections where to camp, all according to a written policy). Nobody outside the group had any control over who did what, and if the group created rules such as "at least one of us will watch the fire at all times," those rules had no force over anyone else. His view of army life is more like a club of amateur athletes heading to a tournament than Apple getting ready to launch a new product.
I'm glad to see there are some here who appreciate the influence of mercenary forces in the Macedonian military machine. And the 10,000 certainly had set quite the example for what a European force 'could' do in Asia. ;)
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Nicator »

Jeanne Reames wrote:There's a series of articles about this topic. At the risk of sounding arrogant and citing myself, see the link below. I note it because I cite the academic "conversation" in articles about the Philotas Affair. Waldemar was replying to Badian's, who was responding to Tarn. Rubinsohn write in response to both, and Adams in response to all, then mine. That's sorta the chronology of the conversation. We all came to somewhat different conclusions.

In chronological order: Tarn (1948) 270ff.; a response from Badian (1960) 324-38; a response partially to Tarn, partially to Badian, Rubinsohn (1977) 409-20; and a response largely to Badian, Heckel (1977) 9-21. Lindsay Adams' article from 2003, just before mine, "The Episode of Philotas: An Insight."

https://www.academia.edu/7364786/Crisis ... ir...Again

I liked this well written paper Jeanne Reames. Dimnus' motives may have been provided with an extrapolative framework by others, but it's always good to keep in mind that limited source basis, with which we've been imbued.

And using or citing your own material is certainly allowed. We've seen many of the popular authors utilize this artifice throughout their careers.

...the Beatles come to mind... :mrgreen:
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
User avatar
Sandros
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 10:52 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Sandros »

Sorry for picking up an old discussion- but where is the Heckel's paper available?
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Xenophon »

Hi Sandros:-)

Waldemar Heckel's paper on Philotas is available on 'JSTOR' here:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087152?seq ... b_contents

If you have access through a library, or other institution you can download it free, otherwise it costs $10 to download, but it can be read online for free in any event.

'JSTOR" has hundreds of papers of interest to those interested in ancient history.

It may be available elsewhere......let "Google" be your friend !!
Alexias
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Alexias »

Anyone can sign up for free to jstor.org. You are just limited to reading 3 articles online (you have to place them on your bookshelf to read) at any one time. You then have to remove them from your bookshelf in order to read another article, but you cannot download them without paying for them.
User avatar
Sandros
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 10:52 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Conspiracy against Philotas By Waldemar Heckel

Post by Sandros »

Thanks! Saved it from JSTOR in my library!
Post Reply