Amyntas

[the_accursed]

Where did I single you out?

I was talking about the whole discussion, everywhere, that "if only Alexander had done this or that" his empire wouldn't have "crumbled"..though words like "idiotic" do suggest a certain subjectivity and judgement.

Right..."the whole discusison, everywhere".

as does:

Producing a Macedonian heir was one of his most basic duties as king. He failed to fulfil it. He did find the time to try to force his own soldiers to bow down to him, to murder an officer in a drunken rage, to torture people and have sex with eunuchs...but not to fulfil one of his most basic obligations to the Macedonian people.

I am agnostic about Alexander. Which is why I still find him and his era fascinating. I save my axe-grinding for modern politicians who I can send "sternly worded e-mails" to.

And I should ask...why was it a basic duty? A duty to whom? The Macedonians? Henry V of England produced an heir, and then died...how did that work out?

Your "agnosticism" seems to mean you find some statements more objectionable than others...though I guess that could not be true as it would indicate "certain subjectivity and judgment"...

Regarding producing an heir, its' been one of the basic duties of every king and queen in history. Why do you think Antipater and Parmenion suggested it? Dying before having produced an heir, at least before the "modern age", greatly increased the risk of turmoil and civil war.

[amyntoros]

And I should ask...why was it a basic duty? A duty to whom? The Macedonians? Henry V of England produced an heir, and then died...how did that work out?

Exactly. And what about Henry VIII who spent years trying to fulfill his "basic duty" at great cost to his kingdom and people? If Alexander's failure to provide a heir made him an unfit king, then Henry's desperate attempts must make him one of the most fit ever. Oh, and by the same token Elizabeth I must be the most unfit ruler we ever had.

Sorry if a bit off-topic but I couldn't resist the comparison.

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Haha...good one Amyntoros....for all of Henry's begatting and attempted begatting and the marital "issues"..and the break with Rome...the Virgin Queen remains the best of the lot..too bad Henry VII (not VIII) couldn't have produced a sensible heir. It's all the first Tudor dynast's fault!

to the_accursed:

Regarding producing an heir, its' been one of the basic duties of every king and queen in history. Why do you think Antipater and Parmenion suggested it? Dying before having produced an heir, at least before the "modern age", greatly increased the risk of turmoil and civil war.

I find your singular focus on Alexander's "failure" to be highly subjective. The history of the Argeads, at least that we know, was no sensible and orderly line of succession before Alexander. They were, like many before and after them (again see the War of the Roses) a bloody lot, how many died in bed in the years before Philip?. See Philip's own family squabbles, to put it lightly, speaking of turmoil and civil war. The Macedonians did not cease to be a people because they no longer had an Argead to lead them. To blame the history of the kingdom on Alexander is just silly. No one can say that if, if, Alexander had produced an heir that was acceptable to the Macedonians that that heir would have proved capable at all. Or that heir's children or their children. If Alexander had a responsibility to anyone, it would have been his dynasty to continue that dynasty (How many kings have decided that a new dynasty would be best for their country? Even if it would be? Though Attalus III of Pergamon did bequeath it to Rome to stop turmoil and civil war..so there is that)..not necessarily a good thing for Macedonia itself. That's why i asked why. Henry VIII was obsessed with the continuation of his line, new as it was. Though his actions are a critical part of history, if taken in isolation, they were destructive and certainly led to much turmoil.

Antipater and Parmenion were old school Macedonians. Their focus, Antipater's anyway, was always Macedonia in a very parochial way. Of course his son did not see the Argeads as needed...seeing as he managed to kill off both of Alexander's sons...heirs, if you will. Though he did marry Alexander's sister and so brought the old line into his..but their sons were very naughty boys. One of them killing her, his own mother. Just as his own father (Cassander) had killed the mother of Alexander and the boy's own cousins, actual Argeads. Yikes! And of course, Antigonus the One-Eyed killed Cleopatra, Alexander's sister as well. and it was the Perdiccas camp that killed Alexander's sister, Cynane/Cynna.

forgot to add: Then there was Olympias herself who killed Arrhidaeus and Adea, both Argeads. Have I left anyone out?

Oh I did! Philip's last child, boy or girl, also killed, allegedly, by Olympias.

And you ignore the fact that has been pointed out to you several times here, that he did produce an heir. On the one hand, perhaps the Macedonians did not like his Asian mother (well, we know that Cassander didn't, I'm not sure about the rank and file Macedonians), but then on the other hand, Alexander was no longer king of just Macedonia..a place he never returned to. So, if Alexander had gotten an heir at such a young age as he was when he left, who is to say that that heir would have suited the needs of the Empire (which is obvious..the Diadochi had other ideas anyway.. and if the mother of this hypothetical heir had been from one of the adversaries' families and not the others...why do you think the other Diadochi would have just been good boys and not try to do exactly what they did do? Loyalty to the Argeads or being King of their own dynasties, Kings of their own little empires?

And again, this all presupposes that the hypothetical heir would have survived childhood. As Marcus pointed out, possibly at least one potential heir did not survive much beyond their birth.

[the_accursed]

I find your singular focus on Alexander's "failure" to be highly subjective. The history of the Argeads, at least that we know, was no sensible and orderly line of succession before Alexander. They were, like many before and after them (again see the War of the Roses) a bloody lot, how many died in bed in the years before Philip?. See Philip's own family squabbles, to put it lightly, speaking of turmoil and civil war. The Macedonians did not cease to be a people because they no longer had an Argead to lead them. To blame the history of the kingdom on Alexander is just silly.

Somehow, your opinions suggest to me a certain subjectivity and judgment.

No one can say that if, if, Alexander had produced an heir that was acceptable to the Macedonians that that heir would have proved capable at all. Or that heir's children or their children.

No. And no one can say that about any heir to a throne, of any nation, at any time in history.

What can be said is that a regent producing an heir - one that most citizens could consider acceptable - decreased the risk of turmoil and civil war after the death of that regent. That's why it was considered so important for such a long time.

If Alexander had a responsibility to anyone, it would have been his dynasty to continue that dynasty (How many kings have decided that a new dynasty would be best for their country? Even if it would be? Though Attalus III of Pergamon did bequeath it to Rome to stop turmoil and civil war..so there is that)..not necessarily a good thing for Macedonia itself. That's why i asked why. Henry VIII was obsessed with the continuation of his line, new as it was. Though his actions are a critical part of history, if taken in isolation, they were destructive and certainly led to much turmoil.

And you ignore the fact that has been pointed out to you several times here, that he did produce an heir. On the one hand, perhaps the Macedonians did not like his Asian mother (well, we know that Cassander didn't), but then on the other hand, Alexander was no longer king of just Macedonia..a place he never returned to. So, if Alexander had gotten an heir at such a young as as he was when he left, who is to say that that heir would have suited the needs of the Empire (which is obvious..the Diadochi had other ideas anyway).

And again, this all presupposes that the hypothetical heir would have survived childhood. As Marcus pointed out, possibly at least one potential heir did not survive much beyond their birth.

Right. Things can end badly anyway. And "who's to say", and "even if". But that doesn't change that it was better if there was an acceptable heir available when a regent died, than if there wasn't one.

I've not ignored "the fact that has been pointed out to you several times here, that he did produce an heir". I've stated that he did not produce a Macedonian heir, as opposed to a "half-barbarian" son. He could have, before the campaign against Persia. But as usual, he couldn't be bothered with matters concerning the welfare of his people and the future of their kingdom, just as he 12 years later thought it more important, more urgent, to force the arabs to recognize him as their new god than to organise his empire.

[athenas owl]

Somehow, your opinions suggest to me a certain subjectivity and judgment.

Okay dokey.

We'll agree to disagree on whether you are more subjective or at least your verbage is. I suppose that you could say pointing out that the Argeads weren't ever playing "Happy Families" is subjective and that Alexander was not that much different than his predecessors or successors, except for that "big plan" he pulled off is also subjective. But then my nic is not "the_accursed" either.

To bring this around the the subject of the topic, Amyntas (iv, he was king when he was a baby). If his father hadn't so thoughtlessly died in a war and his grandmother hadn't been so (okay, we get into muckraking here)..well it did work out for the uncle of the baby king, Philip, father of Alexander. Was Amyntas part of a plot against Philip or Alexander? Maybe, it wouldn't be out of character for the Argeads. And afterall, he had been King before, however briefly.

This, again, is "interesting"...

just as he 12 years later thought it more important, more urgent, to force the arabs to recognize him as their new god than to organise his empire

As the kids would say, Wow. His kingdom/empire was organised, everyone had a place, a job, a satrapy....If you want to argue that he should have been satisfied with what he had, that's a different thing. But then, he wasn't. And the Arab crack is just..well off-colour, if you will.

[Alexias]

Er, on a slightly more dispassionate note, it seems that Arrhidaeus has been forgotten about.

It seems to be generally assumed that he was about Alexander's age and at Alexander's accession that he was already impaired mentally and physically. Yet as a boy (not a child it would seem, so I'm guessing at least until early adolescence) "he had shown an attractive disposition and displayed much promise." If he was a good few years younger than Alexander, he may still have been a viable heir at Alexander's accession, and his deterioration may have only begun once Alexander was in Asia.

If Olympias was responsible for his deterioration, it may well have been around the same time that she killed Cleopatra and her infant(s). If the two events happened around the same time, whether or not Olympias was responsible, gossip would have blamed her.

Also, Plutarch places Olympias's murder of Cleopatra and her infant(s) in the context of Alexander's accession, but might this not just be a convenient point in the narrative to mention the incident? Could Alexander's absence that Plutarch mentions when the deed was performed, have been his absence in Asia? That would leave Alexander with potentially two half-brothers as heirs, not to mention any other, unknown sons of Philip who might have still been around but did not survive to make it into the histories.

[Paralus]

The elimination of rivals was nothing new. To draw a parallel from the Serengeti, when a new male takes over the pride it will, almost always, kill off the cubs. This to bring the mothers into season which he then promply sets about impregnating. Thus his line continues. Philip II strikes me as such.

Philip had the "luxury" of being close to home when he was fathering his children and could keep a hand on the factions (well, until one of them killed him) Had he died, istead of losing an eye, would the younger Alexander have been so fortunate. or successful?...he wasn't in in India, he started his regnal and apparently, his marital one as well, a bit later than Alexander's age when ATG crossed the Hellespont. He was in his mid forties when he planned to cross the same.

Yes Philip II had the luxury of being close to home. He’d also the luxury of picking the pieces of a “kingdom” that had, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. At the time of fathering Alexander – something he seems to have done very quickly after assuming the kingship – he was battling enemies to his north and east including the Chalcidian League backed by a thoroughly self-interested Athens. He’d only just seen off the Illyrian invasion and a pretender backed by Athens.

Philip seems always to have had an eye on the future: his kingdom’s future.

And, as you say, had Alexander IV been 3 years old, 10 years old, 12 years old ... why should that have made any difference to what happened after Alexander III died?

No one can say that if, if, Alexander had produced an heir that was acceptable to the Macedonians that that heir would have proved capable at all. Or that heir's children or their children. If Alexander had a responsibility to anyone, it would have been his dynasty to continue that dynasty .

The phalanx, in Babylon, clearly wanted an Argead. The only available one was Arrhidaeus and he was duly "elected". Whilst it remains speculation I would think that had there been a living son of Alexander – ten or twelve – he’d have been a shoe in.

Basing what may have become of such on what did occur is also speculation: the circumstances are markedly different. When Alexander died he had no heir and the only possibility was exactly that: a possibility to be a boy and / or survive.

Alexander might well have had a responsibility to see his dynasty continue. Many a dynast will see the continued prosperity of his state as inextricably linked to his dynasty and its stability. I doubt that Philip saw any great separation between the strength of his kingship and dynasty and Macedon. Were the state to whither and die the dynasty matters little.

His kingdom/empire was organised, everyone had a place, a job, a satrapy....If you want to argue that he should have been satisfied with what he had, that's a different thing. But then, he wasn't. And the Arab crack is just..well off-colour, if you will.

Alexander is reported as being peeved that the Arabs did not recognise him as a god.

The empire was not stable at the time Alexander planned to depart for Arabia. Eastern Thrace was, in reality, independent and required subjugation by Lysimachos – a process that continued for near a decade or more. Cappadocia was independent and “unsubdued” and took the royal army led by Perdiccas to settle. Trouble existed in Cilicia the settling of which seemed part of Craterus’ bailiwick. Perdiccas also needed to pacify Psidia. At the time of Alexander’s death and the eve of his departure Antipater, in defiance of clear orders, had singularly failed to “bring out the army from Macedon”.

In the end my point remains: Macedon, after Alexander, was far weaker than he had been at Philip’s death. She would never regain that absolute dominance and unchallenged position again.

[athenas owl]

Philip seems always to have had an eye on the future: his kingdom’s future.

Sorry...that cracked me up. It's a good thing he still had that one eye. I am more cynical than you (whod'a thunk it!), in that I don't ascribe his motives as saving his kingdom except in as much as he was reaching for the badly tarnished brass ring, the kingdom being the property of the Agreads and he came out the top Argead dog. Don't know that it was a love of the kingdom, the land, the people, a kind of patriotism I suppose, but rather the power...and because that's just what warlords have done throughout time. Warrior cultures and all that.

I don't disagree with what you say, for the most part, btw. Though I can't recall who said that ATG was miffed about the Arabs not wanting to worship him. And the idea of a "pretender"...I can't recall who the other brothers of Philip were at the moment, one could say that Philip himself was the pretender, or rather the usurper. Ask Amyntas IV!

Though, subjectively, I find Philip much more interesting and fully brought to life. Alexander, was already being separated from his more human qualities by the time the main sources were writing about him...he was the myth that every writer saw through their own mirror. A Roman emperor, a Roman gentleman, a late classical Greek model of kingship, etc. Philip, because he wasn't given that mythic status (though towards the end there he may have been thinking about the godhood himself...it is a very political thing, and he was a politician), we can see him more alive, I do anyway.



I'd love for a papyrus to found, maybe from one of the pages or something that said, "Alexander snores..."

[Paralus]

Sorry...that cracked me up. It's a good thing he still had that one eye.

Yes: obvious and cheap but hard to pass up.

I am more cynical than you (whod'a thunk it!), in that I don't ascribe his motives as saving his kingdom except in as much as he was reaching for the badly tarnished brass ring, the kingdom being the property of the Agreads and he came out the top Argead dog. Don't know that it was a love of the kingdom, the land, the people, a kind of patriotism I suppose, but rather the power...and because that's just what warlords have done throughout time. Warrior cultures and all that.

I don't, of necessity, claim that Philip philanthropically saved Macedon. Clearly if he were to become "the top Argead dog" there would need to be a job other than an Athenian / Chalcidian / Illyrian lackey though. That remains for the rest of his rule: no point in being king if there is no kingdom. The exception to that rule would be Demetrius who, although deprived of a realm, maintained his regnal stature and a coterie of philoi. Hope and expectation flourished in the shifting tides of Diadochoi politics.

I don't disagree with what you say, for the most part, btw. Though I can't recall who said that ATG was miffed about the Arabs not wanting to worship him.

That would be Arrian:

Arrian, Anab. 7.19.5 - 20.1:
He made these preparations of the fleet to attack the main body of the Arabs, under the pretext that they were the only barbarians of this region who had not sent an embassy to him or done anything else becoming their position and showing respect to him. But the truth was, as it seems to me, that Alexander was insatiably ambitious of ever acquiring fresh territory.

The common report is, that he heard that the Arabs venerated only two gods, Uranus and Dionysus; the former because he is himself visible and contains in himself the heavenly luminaries, especially the sun, from which emanates the greatest and most evident benefit to all things human; and the latter on account of the fame he acquired by his expedition into India. Therefore he thought himself quite worthy to be considered by the Arabs as a third god, since he had performed deeds by no means inferior to those of Dionysus.

And the idea of a "pretender"...I can't recall who the other brothers of Philip were at the moment, one could say that Philip himself was the pretender, or rather the usurper. Ask Amyntas IV!

The brothers of Philip were Alexander II and Perdiccas. Alexander II departed life after a rule of about 12 months or so and Perdiccas fell along with 4,000 Macedoninas against the Illyrians leaving a son Amyntas. Thus Philip steps up to the plate two men out and no one on so to speak. He is immediately confronted by not only the Paeonians and Illyrians but the Thracian king who throws a certain Pausanias into the regnal ring (Diod. 16.2.9). Athens, always conniving at Amphipolis and emires past, immediately backed the claims of Argaeus (Diod ditto) who may have ruled for two years before Amyntas was put back on his throne by the Thessalians (Diod.14.92.4). Into this, having settled with the Paeonians and Illyrians, comes the Chalcidian League with the promised (but never to arrive in time) backing of Athens still eyeing off Amphipolis - altruistically of course. Still the old bugger managed to conceive Alexander.

[amyntoros]

No one can say that if, if, Alexander had produced an heir that was acceptable to the Macedonians that that heir would have proved capable at all. Or that heir's children or their children. If Alexander had a responsibility to anyone, it would have been his dynasty to continue that dynasty .

The phalanx, in Babylon, clearly wanted an Argead. The only available one was Arrhidaeus and he was duly "elected". Whilst it remains speculation I would think that had there been a living son of Alexander – ten or twelve – he’d have been a shoe in.

Basing what may have become of such on what did occur is also speculation: the circumstances are markedly different. When Alexander died he had no heir and the only possibility was exactly that: a possibility to be a boy and / or survive.

It's all speculation though, isn't it? Personally, I'm not sure that things would have been entirely different if Alexander had fathered a son before leaving for Persia. The boy would have been too young to rule alone upon his father's death - and that brings up the spectre of a regent. Whether Antipater (if the boy had remained in Macedonia) or any one of the Diadochi, there would still be that vast conquered territory and all those personalities with all their personal greed and ambitions to contend with. I'm guessing you feel that the rank and file would not have divided their loyalties if there had been a Macedonian heir, but I'm not entirely convinced. So much had changed for them since they left Macedonia. I could see them still taking sides over who should be regent.

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Thanks for the link to Arrian, Paralus.

The brothers I am talking about are different than Alexander II and Perdiccas...one he hunted down in Olynthus or there abouts, and I do think there was another one as well. Half brothers, sons of Amyntas III by Gygaia? I have it somewhere in my pile of books.

Anyway, those are the Argead "brothers" I was talking about. When I have time I'll look it up.

[the_accursed]

Okay dokey.

We'll agree to disagree on whether you are more subjective or at least your verbage is. I suppose that you could say pointing out that the Argeads weren't ever playing "Happy Families" is subjective and that Alexander was not that much different than his predecessors or successors, except for that "big plan" he pulled off is also subjective. But then my nic is not "the_accursed" either.

I didn’t and don’t blame Alexander for the history of the Macedonian kingdom (before Alexander, I should add. His reign did influence it's future). I acknowledge the brutality of the Macedonian culture. What I judge him by are his own actions and their consequences. Your claim was not “objective”.

As for “the accursed” I picked it because it fits me, just as you apparently felt “athenas owl” fits you.

To bring this around the the subject of the topic, Amyntas (iv, he was king when he was a baby). If his father hadn't so thoughtlessly died in a war and his grandmother hadn't been so (okay, we get into muckraking here)..well it did work out for the uncle of the baby king, Philip, father of Alexander. Was Amyntas part of a plot against Philip or Alexander? Maybe, it wouldn't be out of character for the Argeads. And afterall, he had been King before, however briefly.

This, again, is "interesting"...

just as he 12 years later thought it more important, more urgent, to force the arabs to recognize him as their new god than to organise his empire

As the kids would say, Wow. His kingdom/empire was organised, everyone had a place, a job, a satrapy....If you want to argue that he should have been satisfied with what he had, that's a different thing. But then, he wasn't. And the Arab crack is just..well off-colour, if you will.

Regarding the arabs, as has been pointed out, this was no crack. The question is what should merit more of a "wow", me pointing it out or that Alexander really thought that way.

[agesilaos]

Some points arising; the half-brother assainated in Olynthos was Arrhidaios, after whom Philip may have named his first son, since he stood aloof from the initial succession struggle (IMO). The story of Alexander being urged to produce an heir almost certainly originated after he died without one, the story of Antipater's summons is an artefact of the First Diodoch War (what would Kassander's chances have been had his father been in revolt? He is attested at Babylon).

Amyntas may have been moving against Alexander, Kynna broke off their marriage suddenly according to Polyainos, why this would not be reported is a poser, however.

As for Philip begatting an heir quickly for the Nation, the man was a sex maniac, an olden-day Berlusconi or Mussolini, Alexander was more like Hitler, sexually repressed; is Barsine not rather like Eva Braun the unacknowledged secret mistress?

[Paralus]

Some points arising; the half-brother assainated in Olynthos was Arrhidaios, after whom Philip may have named his first son, since he stood aloof from the initial succession struggle (IMO).

That's a distinct possibility - the naming. Standing aloof? I doubt that. Diodorus (the only real "narrative" source) is frustratingly at his summarised worst. I think it beyond doubt that Philip controlled some troops under Perdiccas - his seeming readiness at his death would speak to it. The varying traditions that speak to his assuming the kingship or the Macedonians "making" him take it up are a matter of opinion and will, I think, remain so: the evidence is scant. Personally, I believe he took up a regency and quickly believed he could convert that to a kingship - likely after his settlement with the Paeonians. The man strikes me as the chorus from the Newcastle Song.

The story of Alexander being urged to produce an heir almost certainly originated after he died without one, the story of Antipater's summons is an artefact of the First Diodoch War (what would Kassander's chances have been had his father been in revolt? He is attested at Babylon).

There's every chance that the first is correct; there's also a chance it is not. After all, Philip never lacked for trying (as below). Speaking against it is the fact that Parmenion is - demonstrably - in Asia. That does not preclude communication though for it is obvious that he colluded in the murder of his son-in-law.

The second is far more problematic and nowhere near as simple. We are told that Antipater was to bring the army from Macedon. We are also told that Craterus was to lead the veterans home and replace Antipater as "viceroy" of Europe. Regardless of what we decide about that - and there is little reason to dismiss it - Craterus delayed in Cilicia. Yes he was ill and, yes, he'd things to see to. The telling fact is that, after Alexander's death, Craterus remained in Cilicia despite Antipater's call for help in the Lamina War. There are many ingenious theories for this but the simplest is the fact that Craterus was uncertain of how to deal with the Old Rope. When he did move it was to subordinate himself to old general/diplomat.

Clearly there were tensions between the Old Rope and Alexander. Just as clearly Craterus did not really want to be the instrument of Alexander's settling of those tensions. I would agree that the propaganda mills of the Diadochoi exaggerated these tensions and likely “beat up” Antipater’s supposed insubordination. The reality was likely much less prosaic: Antipater had “no army of Macedon” to take to Alexander as the Lamian War would very shortly demonstrate. The fact is that Alexander had taken somewhere between 25,000-30,000 Macedonians east (the larger figure the more likely) and none (aside from a very few) had returned. Kassander likely had the uncomfortable task of relaying the report from his father.

As for Philip begatting an heir quickly for the Nation, the man was a sex maniac, an olden-day Berlusconi or Mussolini, Alexander was more like Hitler, sexually repressed; is Barsine not rather like Eva Braun the unacknowledged secret mistress?

Philip begat an heir for his dynasty; Macedon second. I would agree though: the moment Philip dropped his armour he raised his ardour.

[Paralus]

It's all speculation though, isn't it?

Of course: that' what I wrote.

I'm guessing you feel that the rank and file would not have divided their loyalties if there had been a Macedonian heir, but I'm not entirely convinced. So much had changed for them since they left Macedonia. I could see them still taking sides over who should be regent.

I seriously doubt, had there been a living son of Alexander (8, 10 or 12), that the rank and file will have thought twice. What clearly comes out of the sources over the "Babylonian Settlement" is the rank and file's desire for an Argead heir. Whilst there is much to recommend the notion of loyaty to Philip's house (note Alexander's channelling of his father in his Opis "speech"), a living son of the king will certainly have been preferred to an Arrhidaeus deemed not fit to be put out of the way by Alexander.

Personally, I'm not sure that things would have been entirely different if Alexander had fathered a son before leaving for Persia. The boy would have been too young to rule alone upon his father's death - and that brings up the spectre of a regent. Whether Antipater (if the boy had remained in Macedonia) or any one of the Diadochi, there would still be that vast conquered territory and all those personalities with all their personal greed and ambitions to contend with.

"Spectre"? Implications aside a son conceived prior to the anabasis is an entirely different matter to a child unborn - as I've noted. Clearly the situation in Babylon was unique and the fact that there was no heir at all opened all doors. Whether the rank and file will have abided the marshall's machinations with an extant heir of the king is another matter.

The point about remaining in Macedonia is cogent. If one thing is clear in the settlement of Triparadeisos it is that Antipater emerged trump (by the skin of his teeth). Had the heir to the throne been in Pella with the Old Rope he may well have trumped Babyon's straight flush of marshalls with a royal flush.