The book wot I've been reading

[marcus]

Dear all,

Although I haven't finished it yet, I am ploughing my way through Ian Worthington's Philip II of Macedonia. I was rather nervous when I started it, because I thought his book on Alexander was not very good - he was determined to paint Alexander as the tyrant and at times was very unhistorical in his approach.

But his book on Philip is so much better, and I'm finding it an interesting and balanced read. I jumped straight to the appendices as he has an interesting piece on the Vergina Tombs and the likelihood that it is indeed Philip in Tomb II.

Worthington says that his book is intended to be authoritative. I have to confess that I would still refer to J.R. Ellis' Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, but Worthington's is, if I'm honest, more readable and somewhat easier to understand.

Recommended - and if others have read it I'd be interested in views ... I will write a review for Pothos, but it would be good if others did so, as well.

ATB

[athenas owl]

That's nice to hear about this book. I've been really leery of buying it because I hated his Alexander book.


Off topic, I've been watching Michael Wood's Story of India on PBS. Lovely and I really do like him, but damn! He's at it again. My husband hates for me to watch it because I'm yelling at the screen again (his coverage of the Kushans come to mind), but I can't take my eyes off of it. A visual feast.

[Paralus]

I'd dearly love to pen a review but I've not read it. This is not due to any lack of effort: I ordered it from Amazon last year and it, along with Badian's From Plataia to Potidaea, wound its way to Mars. It was replaced by a double order of three other books which then had to be returned. By this time the AUD had found what became a serious crack in the forex floorboards.

I must order it again though I am wary of educating Martians...

[marcus]

I'd dearly love to pen a review but I've not read it. This is not due to any lack of effort: I ordered it from Amazon last year and it, along with Badian's From Plataia to Potidaea, wound its way to Mars. It was replaced by a double order of three other books which then had to be returned. By this time the AUD had found what became a serious crack in the forex floorboards.

I must order it again though I am wary of educating Martians...

I've just about finished the book. However, I have to admit that I rather lost faith in the chapter about Philip's assassination. Worthington says that by the time of Philip's death Alexander had found out that he was going to be left out of the Asian expedition. Now, I don't recall that this is said in any of the sources, but it might be - although that section of the chapter is suspiciously lacking in footnotes from Worthington (and he has been scrupulous throughout the rest of the book). Therefore it makes me suspicious that he has fixed on this, sans evidence, in order to suggest that Alexander might have had a hand in Philip's murder, for that is his following suggestion.

Is anyone aware of a source that states that Alexander was to be left in Macedonia? I am prepared to stand corrected, as always, but I can't think of any explicit statement in the source material to suggest it is true.

ATB

[Paralus]

The lack of any footnoting for the claim is indicative I'd think. I can't recall the major sources (Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin) claiming such. All, in one form or another, apportion blame to both Olympias and Alexander but none mention being left behind.

It is, to my mind, glaringly aparrent that the two individuals to benefit from the murder are Alexander and his mother. I would then have little doubt of their complicity in some fashion. That is, though, a far cry from asserting that Alexander bumped-off his old man because he was going to be nurse-maiding the homeland while pappy romped through Asia.

I'd not be surprised if Worthington is hanging his hat on the line in Plutarch where a melodramatic Alexander bemoans the fact that his father will "anticipate him in all things". The only other source may be the minor players: Polyaenus, Strabo et al. Again, I cannot remember anything in those claiming the above. Might pay to have a look though...

[agesilaos]

Not only is there no evidence, it presupposes that Alexander would be desperate to go. With his father away and himself clearly rehabilitated - as shown by his prominence in the fatal parade- he may have preferred to remain and govern the kingdom, especially since his rival Attalos was one of the expeditionary generals; he would either remain with the force and create friction or be sent back to Macedon where he could increase the power of his faction. This dilemma might have been a spur, but it would have been easier to remove Attalos.

That ancient authors also asked 'cui bono?' and came up with Alexander and Olympias just as modern ones have should not surprise us, but none of them point to Alexander being left in Europe as a motive; the cause is explicitly Kleopatra's baby and the sidelining of Olympias. 'Bride, bride-giver and husband all'.

Much better story than the more accurate vendetta, of course Pausanias did not act alone, he had family and friends, Alexander used the murder to clear his accounts, as Himmler used to say, and subsequently to lend more weight to his casus belli. The stories of his involvement in the crime must post date his death and in view of the prominent role of Olympias probably stem from the propaganda of Kassandros c316 ;conspiracy theories are much more fun though.

[athenas owl]

It seems to me that if Philip had doubts, worries or suspicions about Alexander the last place he would leave his son is in Macedonia with the possibility to make all kinds of mischief while he, Philip, was too far away to react. Rather, I think he'd prefer the boy right where he could keep an eye him.

[marcus]

That is, though, a far cry from asserting that Alexander bumped-off his old man because he was going to be nurse-maiding the homeland while pappy romped through Asia.

I'd not be surprised if Worthington is hanging his hat on the line in Plutarch where a melodramatic Alexander bemoans the fact that his father will "anticipate him in all things". The only other source may be the minor players: Polyaenus, Strabo et al. Again, I cannot remember anything in those claiming the above. Might pay to have a look though...

Indeed. I started having a look at the minor sources last night, but didn't get through them all. I certainly haven't turned up anything yet. If/when you read the book, the lack of references in that section really is glaringly apparent; and, as I said, Worthington has been assiduous in his referencing throughout the whole of the rest of the book.

(I smiled to myself over one of his footnotes, when he says - with not a little pique - that his theory about such-and-such was not mentioned by Carney in whatever book/article he was mentioning. He wasn't quite throwing his toys out of the pram, but it was close ...! )

ATB

[marcus]

It seems to me that if Philip had doubts, worries or suspicions about Alexander the last place he would leave his son is in Macedonia with the possibility to make all kinds of mischief while he, Philip, was too far away to react. Rather, I think he'd prefer the boy right where he could keep an eye him.

Too true. Of course, accepting that Alexander was properly rehabilitated, we shouldn't expect Philip to be worried. However, even after making up with his son, Philip could hardly be expected to trust him sufficiently enough to leave him behind, especially if Alexander's self-imposed exile in Illyria, and the Pixodarus episode (if it happened at all), occurred between Chaeronea and the assassination - and if he did trust A. that much after those episodes I would think that Philip were a bit bonkers!

ATB

[jan]

It strikes me a bit odd that Alexander would save his father's life at the battle of Charonea to decide later to bump him off...especially in the way that it was accomplished, directly in front of him...but Ian has his grudge against Alexander so he probably would accuse him of anything...

[agesilaos]

It wasn't Chairoeia; the story is only in Curtius and he doesn't give a context although the fact that Alexander saves him from his own mercenaries would make an incident during hia Chalcidean campaigns more likely -during one of the sieges.

All the same i don't put Alexander in the frame for this, Worthington would no doubt put him on the grassy knoll were it not chronologically problematic!

[marcus]

All the same i don't put Alexander in the frame for this, Worthington would no doubt put him on the grassy knoll were it not chronologically problematic!

Goodness! Why let chronology get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

[Efstathios]

and it, along with Badian's

No wonder it's on it's way to Mars

[Paralus]

Cheeky Stathi, Cheeky.

I did wish to read the great man's views on the dating of the peace of Kallias (or its actual existemce) and the panhellenism of Kimon though...

[amyntoros]

I've just about finished the book. However, I have to admit that I rather lost faith in the chapter about Philip's assassination. Worthington says that by the time of Philip's death Alexander had found out that he was going to be left out of the Asian expedition. Now, I don't recall that this is said in any of the sources, but it might be - although that section of the chapter is suspiciously lacking in footnotes from Worthington (and he has been scrupulous throughout the rest of the book). Therefore it makes me suspicious that he has fixed on this, sans evidence, in order to suggest that Alexander might have had a hand in Philip's murder, for that is his following suggestion.

Is anyone aware of a source that states that Alexander was to be left in Macedonia? I am prepared to stand corrected, as always, but I can't think of any explicit statement in the source material to suggest it is true.

... I started having a look at the minor sources last night, but didn't get through them all. I certainly haven't turned up anything yet. If/when you read the book, the lack of references in that section really is glaringly apparent; and, as I said, Worthington has been assiduous in his referencing throughout the whole of the rest of the book.

(I smiled to myself over one of his footnotes, when he says - with not a little pique - that his theory about such-and-such was not mentioned by Carney in whatever book/article he was mentioning. He wasn't quite throwing his toys out of the pram, but it was close ...! )

Don't know if this is the article Worthington referenced (probably not) but Carney's The Politics of Polygamy (Historia, Band XLI/2 (1992)) has this on pages 180-181:

Our sources for the assassination are generally poor; none can have known of a certainty whether anyone other than Pausanias was involved in the murder of Philip. Nor do they clarify Philip's plans about Alexander's role on the Asian expedition; our ignorance on this point limits our ability to judge the motivation of Alexander (and Olympias), since their motivation would, in good part, depend on their expectations about Alexander's immediate future.

She also has a footnote to this referencing Ellis' Assassination, 119, wherein he "simply assumes that Philip intended to take Alexander with him; there is no evidence for this assumption and theories dependent upon it lack foundation." It would follow then that Worthington's statement that Alexander was to be left out of the expedition is equally without evidence.

Not only is there no evidence, it presupposes that Alexander would be desperate to go. With his father away and himself clearly rehabilitated - as shown by his prominence in the fatal parade- he may have preferred to remain and govern the kingdom, especially since his rival Attalos was one of the expeditionary generals; he would either remain with the force and create friction or be sent back to Macedon where he could increase the power of his faction. This dilemma might have been a spur, but it would have been easier to remove Attalos.

Carney makes a very interesting comment elsewhere (unfortunately I can't find it at the moment) where she notes that if Philip had decided to take Alexander with him then Alexander would NOT have been in charge of the campaign. It all depends on how one views Alexander, but it is possible he may have preferred to be in charge at home rather than second-in-command in Asia.

(More comments to follow soon about the rest of Worthington's book.)

Best regards,