Alexander and his mind

[amyntoros]

I think that if the decision was based on ability, then Parmenion would have been a better choice. Or any other experienced Macedonian general. If it was a matter of established Macedonian custom, though, then I can accept that Philip would have had little choice in this matter. But if it was custom, I’d also point out that the decision would have said little about what Philip might have thought about Alexander’s ability. That is, then it would be wrong to argue that it was necessarily a sign of “great faith” in Alexander. If it was a old Macedonian custom, then it was just business as usual.

As others have said, there is little to be found on ancient Macedonia prior to Philip, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish that such an old Macedonian custom did exist. I feel, however, that there's further evidence that Philip entrusted great responsibility to the young. We have, of course, the (other) example of Alexander having been given temporary regency at the tender age of 16, but there's also Alexander of Epirus to consider. As Waldemar Heckel in Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great explains, "In 342, Phillip II deposed Arybbas and placed the 20-year-old Alexander on the throne (of Epirus)." Considering that A of E had spent the previous five years at Philip's court I think we must assume that he also had been groomed to be a king, and both trained and experienced in battle. I think it unlikely to have been otherwise else how could Philip have had any faith in this major appointment? Then there's Eumenes, who didn't play such an important role as the two kings, but who "In 342, at the age of 19, (he) came to the court of Philip, who was impressed by the young man's intelligence (NEum 1.6, 13.1; Anson 37 n. 14) and soon made him one of his hetairoi." (Quote again from Heckel).

IMO, these appointments demonstrate Philip's confidence in those that some might consider too young today for such responsibility, although whether he was acting according to custom or according to his own instincts is impossible to say. I think, however, that we have to realize that there was no such thing as a teenager in ancient times – this word and its connotations came into being only during the twentieth century after child labor was abolished and education extended through high school. In ancient times one was a youth and then one officially became a man, usually after initiation rites were undergone. I still maintain, however, that the young men would have had to prove themselves ready for major appointments and this, in the case of the two Alexanders, must have been accomplished by training and experience. Whether Chaeronea was a situation where Philip allowed Alexander to prove himself or whether this had already been accomplished prior to the battle remains questionable, I admit, but even if the former I still think that Philip took no major risk with the appointment. You said in an earlier post that:

None of the above make any more sense than letting the 18-year old you're grooming to be king/commander in chief take command of one half of your army.

I’m not sure that the evidence supports Alexander having been given "command of one half" of the army. Diodorus 16.86.1 tells us:

The armies deployed at dawn, and the king stationed his son Alexander, young in age but noted for his valour and swiftness of action, on one wing, placing beside him his most seasoned generals, while he himself at the head of picked men exercised the command over the other; individual units were stationed where the occasion required.

The above is open to interpretation, but note that this translation tells us that Alexander was beside Philip's most seasoned generals on the one wing, whilst Philip exercised the command over the other. Given that Philip had thirty thousand infantry and two thousand cavalry it seems unlikely in the extreme that there were not others ably in command of their own apportioned troops. I'm sure that each general knew exactly what he was to do with his own men and that this had all been thrashed out under Philip before the battle. My interpretation is that Alexander's actual physical command may have been over only whatever portion of the troops had been placed directly under him. However, by placing Alexander on the left and himself on the right Philip may well have been allowing the troops to think that Alexander was in charge of the left, but, as I said before, I suspect it was a nominal command and that during the battle Alexander didn't issue orders to the generals beside him because they already knew what to do. I don't think that Philip took much risk at all here. He knew his army and was no doubt extremely confident that his troops were superior to those arraigned against him. According to Diodorus, Philip had the advantage in numbers and in generalship whilst the best of the Athenian generals were dead.

Finally, although some may think me a heretic for saying this; I doubt that the battle would have been in jeopardy had Alexander been injured or killed. Both Diodorus and Plutarch say that Alexander was "the first" to break the enemy lines, but not the only one.

Best regards,

[smittysmitty]

...the evidence supporting the idea of a established Macedonian custom seem impossible to find. This could have been – not must, but could have - a custom established by Philip himself. But then again, it’s also entirely possible that it was established long before him.

I

Approaching this from a slightly different angle, it may have been obligatory for 'royals' of Macedon to take their position on the battlefield. QCR suggests the Macedon's believed their kings to be divinely invested, and it would appear the Argeads publicly pushed this line - being descendants of Heracles and all.

As royals, their status does not allow for them to fall under command of their subjects, hence, wherever a royal is placed on the battlefield, he must be in command, however nominally.

Being in command, as royals, need not infer they are the' best fighters' or best qualified to organise tactics and dispense battle orders etc. Their presence on the battlefield serves in many respects like a 'good luck charm'. This of course, is not to say that from time to time, some royals due to their upbringing and training, were exceptionally gifted soldiers and leaders.

I think it's Justin that tells the story of the Macedonian (6th century BC.) child king Aeropus. The Macedon's being worsted in a battle by some northern tribes (Illyrians/Thracians?) managed to turn these events around having brought the child king onto the battlefield. The very presence of the child king was enough to make the Macedon's fight more resolutely and end the day victorious.

Now obviously, the child was in no position to fight or command the soldiers, but his presence was required to turn events around. For all intents and purposes, you would have to say, that the child Aeropus, as king, was in command of the Macedon's - for no other has higher authority. His presence was felt amongst the troops, so much so that they became victorious. However, to suggest he was actualy serving out orders or even fighting is obviously not the case.

I don't think I'm manipulating events here to make a point. But whene we read that Alexander was in command of the left at Charoneia, I'm not sure as to what exactly in 'command' actualy means. As a royal, my take on this is, he had to be in command. As to what his contribution was - well thats anyone's guess.


cheers!

[athenas owl]

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem comes to mind when I think of young warriors, he was 16 and full ruler when he defeated Saladin at Montgisard.

We, in the modern era have a hard time, I think of conceiving of someone 16, 18 taking control because we have this idea of an extended childhood.

Oh, and Edmund I of England, the "Magnificent". Look at Octavian! I'm sure there are others, but those two are off the top of my head.

And Alexander's own father, Philip took the throne at 23. But in the intervening time, from his return from Thebes, I'm sure he wasn't babysat by others in the fighting that went on over Amphipolis and that Illyrian dust-up...he didn't spring from Perdiccas' head fully formed.

Young men, particularly royal ones were raised for this. The Homecoming Game and being captain of the football team wasn't what their teenage years were all about. Especially if one were from the Argeads.

[marcus]

Young men, particularly royal ones were raised for this. The Homecoming Game and being captain of the football team wasn't what their teenage years were all about. Especially if one were from the Argeads.

Exactly.

[Paralus]

And Alexander's own father, Philip took the throne at 23. But in the intervening time, from his return from Thebes, I'm sure he wasn't babysat by others in the fighting that went on over Amphipolis and that Illyrian dust-up...he didn't spring from Perdiccas' head fully formed.

Indeed he was not babysat. What source material we have on Philip, prior to his taking the throne, is scant and incidental. There is information relating to a disagreement between Perdiccas and Philip. Perdiccas, it will be recalled, had dumped his erstwhile guardian Ptolemy of Alorus, taking power for himself. For whatever reason there were barons who resented this - likely as they lost influence in the power shift - and saw Philip as the way "back in".

The letter of Speusippus to Philip relates that one Euphraeus, a pupil of Plato who seems to have had a strong influence at court, settled the dispute in Perdiccas' favour by allowing Philip some area of Macedonia as his to manage. That this was away from court is highly likely and so reduced his supporter's access to same. Carystius of Pergamum (FGH 4.256/Ath. 506 d-f & 508 d-e) clearly indicates that Philip possessed a decent military force which he apparrently trained so that, at his brother's death, he was ready to take the reigns (Ath.506 d-e):

At least Carystius of Pergamum in Historical Notes writes as follows: ‘Speusippus, learning that Philip was uttering slanders about Plato, wrote in a letter something of this sort: “As if the whole world did not know that Philip acquired the beginning of his kingship through Plato’s agency. For Plato sent to Perdiccas Euphraeus of Oreus, who persuaded Perdiccas to portion off some territory to Philip. Here Philip kept a force, and when Perdiccas died, since he had this force in readiness, he at once plunged into the control of affairs.”

He then adds " Now whether in fact this is really so God alone can know." The letter of Speusippus would indicate it was fact. That Philip thought ill of this meddler in his county's affairs - and that said meddling mainly beneifitted his brother - is indicated by Euphraeus' end some eighteen years later (Ath. 508 d):

Euphraeus for example, when staying at the court of King Perdiccas in Macedonia, lorded it as regally as the king himself, though he was of low origin and given to slander; he was so pedantic in his selection of the king’s associates that nobody could share in the common mess if he did not know how to practise geometry or philosophy. For this reason, when Philip succeeded to the throne, Parmenion seized and killed Euphraeus in Oreus, according to Carystius in Historical Notes.

Or, as Demosthenes has it, Euphraeus committed suicide rather than be taken. Either way he seemed not to want to fall into Philip's hands. The fact that Philip, at the time of his brother's death, had been in control of a portion of Macedonia and had been training his forces makes it somewhat easier to understand those passages in Diodorus relating to Philip's training and re-arming of the armed forces.

He was definitely not being babysat. He was being that Philip we've come to know and love...unless you're Demosthenes.

[athenas owl]

Thank you Paralus! I knew there was more, but couldn't retrieve it from the dusty corners of my brain.

I forget which historian made the crack about Parmenion taking revenge for the dreary symposia that Euphraeus imposed on the the living large Macedonians, but it has always made me smile.

I do think there was something more "political" about the murder (suicide?) of Euphraeus, but I like that story better. Callisthenes should have taken note.

Can you or anyone recommend a good biography of Philip?

[amyntoros]

Can you or anyone recommend a good biography of Philip?

Now, Ian Worthington has written one on Philip and it will surely be worth the read - probably controversial too if his book on Alexander is anything to go by! There's some confusion here though. The book is called Philip II of Macedonia: The King behind Alexander the Great and as you can see from the link, Amazon says it was published on February 19, 2008 but they currently don't have any copies available. I had, however, the opportunity to meet Worthington and some other academics in person back in April (more on that if/when I get around to composing a post and starting a thread ) and I asked him when his book was due out. He told me it should be published in the Fall! As Amazon is showing a single copy available from a used book dealer I suspect that what is on offer is a publisher's proof and the seller is trying to get a high price for it before the official publication. Worthington's book on Alexander was sold at a very reasonable price, as I recall, and I doubt that his book on Philip will be another one of those high priced academic tomes.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Can you or anyone recommend a good biography of Philip?

I do not know if it is still available - I couldn't get a copy in late '06 before heading off to NYC on that world extravaganza - but NGL Hammond's Philip of Macedonis an excellent read and quite affordable.

Judging from the Amazon link in that Google Books search it is still out of print. Pity. It has a concise essay on the source tradition and is quite fulsome with chapters devoted to the establishment of Macedon and subsequent consolidation under Philip as well as his relationship with the city states - particularly his dealings with Athens.

It appears that Eupraeus, seemingly a self-important git, got a little too big for his greaves. Pity we have little more than asides about him and this time in Macedonia's history. He likely had some influence prior to Perdiccas III - possibly with the father Amyntas. It seems unlikely that Perdiccas pulled him out of nowhere so to speak. It's hard to imagine Plato suddenly deciding that he'd best send Euphraes to sort out Macedonia.

Given the attitude of Philip towards him, that influence didn't run too strongly in Philip's direction as I hypothesised above. He likey resented the meddling. His dislike of cultured philosophers didn't run to Aristotle though.

Perhaps he was heartily sick of the constant geometry tasks imposed on those at court?

[Paralus]

You’d near bet the house that historian will have been Green. It was not though – as far as I can see. There’s possibly more to it than not though. These “barons” were far from the sophisticates of the city states to the south; they likely resented the “Hellenisation” of the courts of both Archelaeus as well as Amyntas and Perdiccas.

A typical Greenism sums up Theopompus:

Most Macedonian nobles preferred the more manly pleasures of hunting, carousing and casual fornication. Sodomy – with young boys or, at a pinch, with each other – they also much enjoyed; but they had no intention of letting it be contaminated with Platonic notions of spiritual uplift.

The original (Theopompus quoted by Polybius 8.9.5-13) is more to the point:

Anyone who chooses to read the beginning of his forty-ninth Book will be amazed at the extravagance of this writer. Apart from other things, he has ventured to write as follows. I set down the passage in his own words: "Philip's court in Macedonia was the gathering-place of all the most debauched and brazen-faced characters in Greece or abroad, who were there styled the king's companions. For Philip in general showed no favour to men of good repute who were careful of their property, but those he honoured and promoted were spendthrifts who passed their time drinking and gambling. In consequence he not only encouraged them in their vices, but made them past masters in every kind of wickedness and lewdness. Was there anything indeed disgraceful and shocking that they did not practise, and was there anything good and creditable that they did not leave undone? Some of them used to shave their bodies and make them smooth although they were men, and others actually practised lewdness with each other though bearded. While carrying about two or three minions with them they served others in the same capacity, so that we would be justified in calling them not courtiers but courtesans and not soldiers but strumpets. For being by nature man-slayers they became by their practices man-whores. In a word," he continues, "not to be prolix, and especially as I am beset by such a deluge of other matters, my opinion is that those who were called Philip's friends and companions were worse brutes and of a more beastly disposition than the Centaurs who established themselves on Pelion, or those Laestrygones who dwelt in the plain of Leontini, or any other monsters."

Interestingly – and bringing this back to the subject a little - in a passage I’ve always found eminently sensible, Polybius makes the following observation of Alexander and Philip’s generals (those that Theopompus has been busy writing lewd remarks about 8.9.5-13):

Quite apart from what was accomplished during Philip's lifetime, the success achieved after Philip's death by the aid of Alexander indisputably established in the eyes of all their reputations for valour. While we should perhaps give Alexander, as commander-in chief, the credit for much, notwithstanding his extreme youth, we should assign no less to his co-operators and friends, who defeated the enemy in many marvellous battles, exposed themselves often to extraordinary toil, danger, and hardship, and after possessing themselves of vast wealth and unbounded resources for satisfying every desire, neither suffered in a single case any impairment of their physical powers, nor even to gratify their passion were guilty of malpractices and licentiousness; but all of them, one may say, proved themselves indeed to be kingly men by virtue of their magnanimity, self-restraint, and courage, as long as they lived with Philip and afterwards with Alexander. It is unnecessary to mention anyone by name. And after the death of Alexander, when they disputed the empire of the greater part of the world…

Seems that such proclivities did not prevent these men excercising their duties in war. This is not the only remark in this vein by Polybius. There is this on Philip’s planning and Alexander’s execution (3.6.12-14 and 22.18.10):

From both of these facts Philip perceived and reckoned on the cowardice and indolence of the Persians as compared with the military efficiency of himself and his Macedonians, and further fixing his eyes on the splendour of the great prize which the war promised, he lost no time, once he had secured the avowed good-will of the Greeks, but seizing on the pretext that it was his urgent duty to take vengeance on the Persians for their injurious treatment of the Greeks, he bestirred himself and decided to go to war, beginning to make every preparation for this purpose. We must therefore look on the first considerations I have mentioned as the causes of the war against Persia, the second as its pretext and Alexander's crossing to Asia as its beginning…

…For just as I said that Philip, son of Amyntas, conceived and meant to carry out the war against Persia, but that it was Alexander who put his decision into execution…

What is most refreshing about Polybius’ portrait of Alexander (and there is more including his destruction of Thebes to make the point – nothing about the Boeotian’s urgings) is that it is entirely free of the Alexandro-centric view – with its attendant apologia or adulation – that so pervades the “Alexander historians”.

It is the first quoted passage, though, which so clearly indicates that Polybius, sans the need to fawn or apologise, saw the execution of this invasion and the battle plans enacted as the product of more than simply Alexander. He will, one suspects, have had access to much of the material that those who followed him used. In his view it was Philip’s generals as much as Alexander who were responsible for the fall of Persia. I’d agree.

Were we left only with the Alexander historians, we’d have no choice but to agree that Philip’s most trusted and important general, Parmenio, was an incompetent, over cautious and incontinent old goat. He certainly had no right to be on the left of any engagement much less in command of it.

[Phoebus]

Paralus, at the risk of veering off the topic of the conversation, I was hoping to ask you this:

What is your opinion of Theopompus' passages, above? Do you think it's a case of his exercising criticism over concepts he didn't approve of; or a case of his manufacturing a picture that he knew the Greeks to the south would not approve of?

[the_accursed]

Amyntoros:

I think any position taken in this discussion has it's logical consequences, that have to be accepted. If Alexander commanding the left wing was a matter of Macedonian custom, then there's no reason to assume that "faith" in Alexander had anything to do with it. For instance, Paul Cartledge writes (in his "Alexander the great: the hunt for a new past):

Alexander, as we have seen, had been regent of Macedon at sixteen. At eighteen, at Chaeronea, he was appointed by Philip to the overall command of the crack Macedonian Companion Cavalry. This in itself speaks worlds both for Alexander's prowess and Philip's faith in his command abilities.

If what has been argued in this thread is correct, then this is simply wrong. If Alexander being regent at 16 and commanding the left wing at 18 was a matter of Macedonian custom, then Alexander being on the left wing says nothing about his "prowess" or about Philip's "faith" in his command ability. At best, it only says that Philip thought that Alexander would be able to accomplish what any Macedonian prince would have been expected to accomplish.

You may maintain that Alexander had already proven himself to Philip...but can you prove it? One word many historians like to use to describe Alexander is "precocious". There doesen't seem to be much evidence that this was the case. As far as we know, Philip may have thought that Alexander was mediocre and a disappointment. If there was a custom, then Philip may still have felt that he had to let Alexander command the left wing at Chaeronea.

You said in an earlier post that:

None of the above make any more sense than letting the 18-year old you're grooming to be king/commander in chief take command of one half of your army.

I’m not sure that the evidence supports Alexander having been given "command of one half" of the army. Diodorus 16.86.1 tells us:

Actually, it was Phoebus who wrote that.

The above is open to interpretation, but note that this translation tells us that Alexander was beside Philip's most seasoned generals on the one wing, whilst Philip exercised the command over the other. Given that Philip had thirty thousand infantry and two thousand cavalry it seems unlikely in the extreme that there were not others ably in command of their own apportioned troops. I'm sure that each general knew exactly what he was to do with his own men and that this had all been thrashed out under Philip before the battle. My interpretation is that Alexander's actual physical command may have been over only whatever portion of the troops had been placed directly under him. However, by placing Alexander on the left and himself on the right Philip may well have been allowing the troops to think that Alexander was in charge of the left, but, as I said before, I suspect it was a nominal command and that during the battle Alexander didn't issue orders to the generals beside him because they already knew what to do. I don't think that Philip took much risk at all here. He knew his army and was no doubt extremely confident that his troops were superior to those arraigned against him. According to Diodorus, Philip had the advantage in numbers and in generalship whilst the best of the Athenian generals were dead.

Myself, I think that someone must have been in command of the left wing. If it wasn't Alexander - good. As I don't think he should have been. But someone must have been. I don't think, if a decision needed to be made, the generals decided together. The battlefield wasn't the right time and place for discussions. Someone had to make the final decisions, and if it wasn't Alexander, then it must have been someone else.

Regarding "teenager", I think you're nitpicking. I used the word as in: "person between 13 and 19 years old".

[Paralus]

Theopompus was contemporary with the events he describes. He is writing for the city states and brings that viewpoint to his work. His method is to basically criticise; praise being at a premium in his surviving fragments. This then means that his work becomes somewhat like a “morality tale” in that the criticism is based on his (city state) morality.

He is obviously most appalled at Philip's womanising describing his behaviour as intemperate to the degree that it undid his household. To a city state Greek it was not the done thing for a fellow to take multiple wives. He also upbraids Philip for his rather incontinent consumption of unmixed wine: it seems Philip “appeared in front of his friends manifestly drunk” even in the middle of the day! His description of the Macedonian court (somewhat echoed by Demosthenes) is peppered with that which offends his sensibilities.

All that having been said, the reputation he had in antiquity for being a “lover of truth” cannot have been sustained if such were not rooted in fact. It is this severity of judgement that likely appealed to similar minded city state readers and fostered this view of Theopompus. It is likely, even certain, that he exaggerated in his descriptions of that which he found “immoral”. The use of sensational language was, in antiquity as today, likely to garner attention and to be remembered. Again, that does not make the basic details incorrect.

So, in summary, I’d suggest that the above quoted lines from Theopompus are rooted in fact. The Macedonian court of Philip was certainly no perfumed parlour of cultural renaissance. That is not to say that it lacked any culture; it did not. The picture painted, stripped of the more sensational language, is one of a hard-drinking, womanising (and sodomising) group of boisterous barons. This sits reasonably with the story of Pausanias later and of the other descriptions we fleetingly find of Macedonian get-togethers.

The passages following the critique of Philip and his court are Polybius’ own. I tend to find them eminently sensible.

[marcus]

You may maintain that Alexander had already proven himself to Philip...but can you prove it? One word many historians like to use to describe Alexander is "precocious". There doesen't seem to be much evidence that this was the case. As far as we know, Philip may have thought that Alexander was mediocre and a disappointment.

Oh, I don't know, the_accursed. You only have to consider the taming of Bucephalus, and Philip's own remark that Macedonia would prove not to be big enough for Alexander, to get the feeling that Alexander was indeed a precocious youth. Of course, one must question whether the story is entirely true in the form it's come down to us, or whether the quote from Philip is true (after all, it is a very convenient prophecy).

Then there's the mention that the Macedonian army called Alexander their "king" and Philip their "general". Add to that his campaign against the Mardi, which was done off his own bat without sanction from Philip; and his subsequent first city foundation.

I would say that all these things point to him being precocious. Whether they are all entirely true isn't the point - at least, not when it comes to wondering why historians have referred to him as being precocious.

ATB

[the_accursed]

Oh, I don't know, the_accursed. You only have to consider the taming of Bucephalus, and Philip's own remark that Macedonia would prove not to be big enough for Alexander, to get the feeling that Alexander was indeed a precocious youth. Of course, one must question whether the story is entirely true in the form it's come down to us, or whether the quote from Philip is true (after all, it is a very convenient prophecy).

Then there's the mention that the Macedonian army called Alexander their "king" and Philip their "general". Add to that his campaign against the Mardi, which was done off his own bat without sanction from Philip; and his subsequent first city foundation.

I would say that all these things point to him being precocious. Whether they are all entirely true isn't the point - at least, not when it comes to wondering why historians have referred to him as being precocious.

ATB

Modern historians, though, ought to know better than to do so.

I think that, as usual, knowledge about what Alexander would "accomplish" later on has influenced the descriptions of what he "must" have been like in his youth. The story of Alexander taming Bucephalus is almost certainly a myth. A horse afraid of his own shadow! And that phobia then just miraculously disappearing within a few minutes. And of course, Alexander succeeding where adults - and experts in the field - had failed. Not to mention what Philip is supposed to have said afterwards. I can't see how anyone - today - can believe in this. His campaign against the Maedi was what he was supposed to do as the acting regent. Nothing "precocious" about it. They rebelled. He had to do something about it. And I think it was Peter Green who wrote that the "Alexander is our king" thing was most likely a rumour started by Alexander himself. I myself am inclined to agree.

[marcus]

Modern historians, though, ought to know better than to do so.

I think that, as usual, knowledge about what Alexander would "accomplish" later on has influenced the descriptions of what he "must" have been like in his youth. The story of Alexander taming Bucephalus is almost certainly a myth. A horse afraid of his own shadow! And that phobia then just miraculously disappearing within a few minutes. And of course, Alexander succeeding where adults - and experts in the field - had failed. Not to mention what Philip is supposed to have said afterwards. I can't see how anyone - today - can believe in this. His campaign against the Maedi was what he was supposed to do as the acting regent. Nothing "precocious" about it. They rebelled. He had to do something about it. And I think it was Peter Green who wrote that the "Alexander is our king" thing was most likely a rumour started by Alexander himself. I myself am inclined to agree.

You might well be right. I imagine, however, that Alexander's dealing with the Maedi at age 16 - and, probably more to the point, finishing the campaign off by founding his own city - is the indicator of precociousness. Considering all that has been discussed in this thread, I would suggest that taking it upon himself to crush the Maedi, and doing so successfully, at the age of 16, must qualify him for precociousness; but if that wasn't enough, the foundation of the city certainly does.

ATB