So Alexander's relationship with Barsine was an insult to Artabazus then? So much for Ogden and modern speculation. Falling at the first hurdle of self-consistency!
Best wishes,
Andrew
Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???
Moderator: pothos moderators
Modern speculation and self congratulatory, oleaginous posts aside, I doubt very much that Alexander intended there to be any to bringing GÇ£into his campGÇ¥ of the Iranian/Asian peoples by virtue of his liaison with Barsine. Indeed it probably served no purpose other self gratification.Taphoi wrote:So Alexander's relationship with Barsine was an insult to Artabazus then?
Had he, God forbid, married her, he will have been husband three?
His father, though, leaves the distinct impression that most every female dalliance was carried out with that good eye firmly cocked to the political accruals. Possibly even the last GÇô fateful though it turned out to be.
AlexanderGÇÖs methods (insulting others or dealing with perceived insults) seem somewhat more pointed shall we say.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
You may wish you'd asked me what Ogden said about Barsine before posting the above. As it happens, on July 31st I posted an excerpt on Barsine from Ogden's book in the An Illegitimate Son thread. You must not have been reading the forum at the time as you obviously don't know that Ogden reasons that Alexander married Barsine.Taphoi wrote:So Alexander's relationship with Barsine was an insult to Artabazus then? So much for Ogden and modern speculation. Falling at the first hurdle of self-consistency!
I don't understand why you would want to discredit Ogden without even knowing what he wrote about Barsine. Does he offend you in some way?
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
It is impossible that Alexander was married to Barsine. If he had been, then any male child would automatically have been recognised as Alexander's son. It is clear that Alexander never acknowledged Heracles as his son, because Diodorus 18.2.1 states that Alexander was considered "childless" (apaidos), when he died. Just to show that this was no error, Diodorus 18.9.1 repeats that Alexander "left no sons as successors to the kingdom". Diodorus is closely following an excellent primary source here, who could never have made these statements, if Heracles had been legitimate or acknowledged by Alexander. Furthermore, Plutarch states that Barsine was the only Asian woman Alexander had sexual relations with BEFORE marriage, so he obviously hadn't married her. You should read Alexander's Lovers where these things are discussed.
I need hardly add that, despite many mentions of Barsine, there is no source evidence that Alexander married her to counteract this explicit source evidence that he did not. (The "Barsine" whom Alexander married at Susa in Arrian is an obvious mistake for Stateira, because she is "Darius' eldest daughter".) Nothing that happened to Heracles would be at all explicable if he had been legitimate: he should have had primacy over Alexander IV, had he been acknowledged and he should have been mentioned in the Liber de Morte.
It is quite wrong to suggest that Alexander ever married Barsine the daughter of Artabazus.
Cordially,
Andrew
I need hardly add that, despite many mentions of Barsine, there is no source evidence that Alexander married her to counteract this explicit source evidence that he did not. (The "Barsine" whom Alexander married at Susa in Arrian is an obvious mistake for Stateira, because she is "Darius' eldest daughter".) Nothing that happened to Heracles would be at all explicable if he had been legitimate: he should have had primacy over Alexander IV, had he been acknowledged and he should have been mentioned in the Liber de Morte.
It is quite wrong to suggest that Alexander ever married Barsine the daughter of Artabazus.
Cordially,
Andrew
Indeed. One should learn never to diverge from an authority.amyntoros wrote:IGÇÖm becoming very uncomfortable with the direction that these discussions are taking.Taphoi wrote:It is impossible that GǪ It is quite wrong GǪ You should read AlexanderGÇÖs Lovers where these things are discussed.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Good god I almost agree with Andrew, it seems very unlikely that Alexander married Barsine since no source mentions it only sexual relations, however Alexander was clearly not childless since Alexander IV was his so that is a strange line to take, although you could say at the momemnt of his death that is true since he was unborn.
However, the Herakles plot is one of Antigonos' failures; had he been truely Alexander's child we might expect more excoriation of Kassander, this may be down to Diodoros' epitomizing of course.
I suspect, but there is no firm evidence, that Herakles is a sort of Perkin Warbeck and that even the relations recorded by Plutarch with Barsine are diadochic propaganda designed to support the claim of this child. Alexander does not seem to have been overly fond of procreation and the story is that he is following Parmenion's advice; which is unlikely to have come from Kallisthenes, Ptolemy or Aristoboulos with there bias post eventum against Parmenion. But if Hieronymos is the peddlar might not Kleitarchos be the source, since Curtius X ends with the succession quarrel and marries substantially but not exactly with Diodoros ,who is using Hieronymos, is this not further evidence for a late date for Kleitarchos?
Alas, I have no copy of any of the Romances so cannot reply in detail on matters there arising other than to restate that the Metz epitome seems to append the earliest copy of the Liber de Morte to a paraphrase of Kleitarchos untainted by 'Romance' and ought to be held as more useful evidence. returning to the subject of the thread, it is not in dpute that later opinion held Ptolemy to be Philip's son so it is no wonder that late anecdotal writers and acknowleged sensationalists, ie Kleitarchos, can treat it as a fact. But there is a dearth of more contemporary claims whilst reasons for invention abound so I cannot see any reason to credit late invention. Mary Renault wrote a damn fine book but her reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny, she says in 'The Nature of Alexander' that no one as cruel as the vulgate depiction could have been mourned as much or as charismatic as all the sources say he was but she blinds herself to the fact that both Stalin and Hitler were charismatic and surprisingly mourned; one thing Alexander definately had going was a cult of personality!
All the best
However, the Herakles plot is one of Antigonos' failures; had he been truely Alexander's child we might expect more excoriation of Kassander, this may be down to Diodoros' epitomizing of course.
I suspect, but there is no firm evidence, that Herakles is a sort of Perkin Warbeck and that even the relations recorded by Plutarch with Barsine are diadochic propaganda designed to support the claim of this child. Alexander does not seem to have been overly fond of procreation and the story is that he is following Parmenion's advice; which is unlikely to have come from Kallisthenes, Ptolemy or Aristoboulos with there bias post eventum against Parmenion. But if Hieronymos is the peddlar might not Kleitarchos be the source, since Curtius X ends with the succession quarrel and marries substantially but not exactly with Diodoros ,who is using Hieronymos, is this not further evidence for a late date for Kleitarchos?
Alas, I have no copy of any of the Romances so cannot reply in detail on matters there arising other than to restate that the Metz epitome seems to append the earliest copy of the Liber de Morte to a paraphrase of Kleitarchos untainted by 'Romance' and ought to be held as more useful evidence. returning to the subject of the thread, it is not in dpute that later opinion held Ptolemy to be Philip's son so it is no wonder that late anecdotal writers and acknowleged sensationalists, ie Kleitarchos, can treat it as a fact. But there is a dearth of more contemporary claims whilst reasons for invention abound so I cannot see any reason to credit late invention. Mary Renault wrote a damn fine book but her reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny, she says in 'The Nature of Alexander' that no one as cruel as the vulgate depiction could have been mourned as much or as charismatic as all the sources say he was but she blinds herself to the fact that both Stalin and Hitler were charismatic and surprisingly mourned; one thing Alexander definately had going was a cult of personality!
All the best
Good god I almost agree with Andrew, it seems very unlikely that Alexander married Barsine since no source mentions it only sexual relations, however Alexander was clearly not childless since Alexander IV was his so that is a strange line to take, although you could say at the momemnt of his death that is true since he was unborn.
However, the Herakles plot is one of Antigonos' failures; had he been truely Alexander's child we might expect more excoriation of Kassander, this may be down to Diodoros' epitomizing of course.
I suspect, but there is no firm evidence, that Herakles is a sort of Perkin Warbeck and that even the relations recorded by Plutarch with Barsine are diadochic propaganda designed to support the claim of this child. Alexander does not seem to have been overly fond of procreation and the story is that he is following Parmenion's advice; which is unlikely to have come from Kallisthenes, Ptolemy or Aristoboulos with there bias post eventum against Parmenion. But if Hieronymos is the peddlar might not Kleitarchos be the source, since Curtius X ends with the succession quarrel and marries substantially but not exactly with Diodoros ,who is using Hieronymos, is this not further evidence for a late date for Kleitarchos?
Alas, I have no copy of any of the Romances so cannot reply in detail on matters there arising other than to restate that the Metz epitome seems to append the earliest copy of the Liber de Morte to a paraphrase of Kleitarchos untainted by 'Romance' and ought to be held as more useful evidence. returning to the subject of the thread, it is not in dpute that later opinion held Ptolemy to be Philip's son so it is no wonder that late anecdotal writers and acknowleged sensationalists, ie Kleitarchos, can treat it as a fact. But there is a dearth of more contemporary claims whilst reasons for invention abound so I cannot see any reason to credit late invention. Mary Renault wrote a damn fine book but her reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny, she says in 'The Nature of Alexander' that no one as cruel as the vulgate depiction could have been mourned as much or as charismatic as all the sources say he was but she blinds herself to the fact that both Stalin and Hitler were charismatic and surprisingly mourned; one thing Alexander definately had going was a cult of personality!
All the best
However, the Herakles plot is one of Antigonos' failures; had he been truely Alexander's child we might expect more excoriation of Kassander, this may be down to Diodoros' epitomizing of course.
I suspect, but there is no firm evidence, that Herakles is a sort of Perkin Warbeck and that even the relations recorded by Plutarch with Barsine are diadochic propaganda designed to support the claim of this child. Alexander does not seem to have been overly fond of procreation and the story is that he is following Parmenion's advice; which is unlikely to have come from Kallisthenes, Ptolemy or Aristoboulos with there bias post eventum against Parmenion. But if Hieronymos is the peddlar might not Kleitarchos be the source, since Curtius X ends with the succession quarrel and marries substantially but not exactly with Diodoros ,who is using Hieronymos, is this not further evidence for a late date for Kleitarchos?
Alas, I have no copy of any of the Romances so cannot reply in detail on matters there arising other than to restate that the Metz epitome seems to append the earliest copy of the Liber de Morte to a paraphrase of Kleitarchos untainted by 'Romance' and ought to be held as more useful evidence. returning to the subject of the thread, it is not in dpute that later opinion held Ptolemy to be Philip's son so it is no wonder that late anecdotal writers and acknowleged sensationalists, ie Kleitarchos, can treat it as a fact. But there is a dearth of more contemporary claims whilst reasons for invention abound so I cannot see any reason to credit late invention. Mary Renault wrote a damn fine book but her reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny, she says in 'The Nature of Alexander' that no one as cruel as the vulgate depiction could have been mourned as much or as charismatic as all the sources say he was but she blinds herself to the fact that both Stalin and Hitler were charismatic and surprisingly mourned; one thing Alexander definately had going was a cult of personality!
All the best
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Hi Agesilaos,
Tarn has shown that it is possible to construct a seemingly credible plot such that Heracles was introduced as an imposter in 309BC, despite the fact that Nearchus (and Meleager?) raised the subject of Heracles at the Assembly in Babylon just after Alexander's death. However, Tarn's case falls apart on details of the source evidence, of which he seems to have been unaware. For example, Strabo 17.1.8 mentions that the "children" of Alexander accompanied Perdiccas in Egypt in 321BC and it is difficult to see how this can be other than both Alexander IV and Heracles.
The version of the Liber de Morte in the Armenian Alexander Romance is in many ways the fullest and best quality recension that survives. For example it has the fullest and most accurate list of guests at Alexander's last party. The version in the Metz is epitomised, just like the rest of that document.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Tarn has shown that it is possible to construct a seemingly credible plot such that Heracles was introduced as an imposter in 309BC, despite the fact that Nearchus (and Meleager?) raised the subject of Heracles at the Assembly in Babylon just after Alexander's death. However, Tarn's case falls apart on details of the source evidence, of which he seems to have been unaware. For example, Strabo 17.1.8 mentions that the "children" of Alexander accompanied Perdiccas in Egypt in 321BC and it is difficult to see how this can be other than both Alexander IV and Heracles.
The version of the Liber de Morte in the Armenian Alexander Romance is in many ways the fullest and best quality recension that survives. For example it has the fullest and most accurate list of guests at Alexander's last party. The version in the Metz is epitomised, just like the rest of that document.
Best wishes,
Andrew
-
Chris Bennett
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ptolemy the adoptive son of Lagos
I just stumbled across this BBoard. I'd like to follow up on a few comments made in this interesting thread.
Moreover, such a junior prince as Philip was at the time was hardly in a position to get his pregnant girlfriend married off, and if she was a courtesan there would have been no reason to do so. If, as the Ptolemies later claimed, Arsinoe herself was closely related to the royal family, the more likely result is surely that there would have been a forced marriage between them.
To my mind, the most persuasive point she made for crediting the story to Ceraunus was that a fragment of Porphyry notes that Antipater Etesias was chosen as king of Macedon because he was not of royal blood. This clearly implies that his immediate predecessors, Ceraunus and Meleager, both sons of Ptolemy Soter, were considered to be of royal blood. What was the difference? True, Etesias was not a king's son, but he was a close relative of Cassander, so it seems unlikely that Porphyry was comparing his status to that of Ceraunus and Meleager as sons of Soter; rather, the royal blood in question must be that of the Argeads.
Chris Bennett
It seems to me that this is a very strong point against Soter actually being a son of Philip. While it is sometimes argued that Lucian "must" be wrong about Soter's age, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence against him, which, as noted here, makes Philip only 14, an ephebe, when Ptolemy was born, and at most 14 when he was conceived. While I suppose it is, just, biologically possible that Philip was Soter's father, it seems pretty unlikely.Taphoi wrote:It seems that Philip fathered Ptolemy when he was 14 (Lucian, Makrobioi 12), between stints as a hostage in Illyria and Thebes.
Moreover, such a junior prince as Philip was at the time was hardly in a position to get his pregnant girlfriend married off, and if she was a courtesan there would have been no reason to do so. If, as the Ptolemies later claimed, Arsinoe herself was closely related to the royal family, the more likely result is surely that there would have been a forced marriage between them.
I don't think that was Nina Collins' point. As I understood her she was merely saying that Diodorus would have noted such a close relationship if it were true. While marriages between full siblings, like that between Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, were truly scandalous, marriages between half-siblings were not unknown -- cf Ptolemy Ceraunus and Arsinoe II. But they were unusual, and this would have been a spectacular example.amyntoros wrote:The part that most caught my eye is that Diodorus never refers to the Ptolemy/Philip relationship when discussing Ptolemy's engagement to Cleopatra, who would have been his half-sister if it were true. I think the engagement would have caused some considerable consternation amongst the still traditional Macedonians if it was "common knowledge" at that time that Ptolemy was Philip's son.
To my mind, the most persuasive point she made for crediting the story to Ceraunus was that a fragment of Porphyry notes that Antipater Etesias was chosen as king of Macedon because he was not of royal blood. This clearly implies that his immediate predecessors, Ceraunus and Meleager, both sons of Ptolemy Soter, were considered to be of royal blood. What was the difference? True, Etesias was not a king's son, but he was a close relative of Cassander, so it seems unlikely that Porphyry was comparing his status to that of Ceraunus and Meleager as sons of Soter; rather, the royal blood in question must be that of the Argeads.
Chris Bennett
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
A quick trawl of the web turned up this study of teenage fatherhood: http://www.juvenilejustice.com/teenfather.html
It found 7 members of a sample of 615 "urban males" who had become fathers at age 15. Probably around half had been 14 at the time of conception given 9 months gestation. These are the statistics for modern society where fatherhood at this age is strongly deprecated and penalised. We know that teenage Macedonian princes were actively encouraged to practice philandering with the opposite sex (as well as with the same sex). Alexander is said as a youth to have had the attentions of Callixeina thrust upon him by his parents.
I am shocked that you should think that Philip's age is a strong reason to believe he did not illegitimately conceive Ptolemy at 14. It would have been biologically feasible at least two years earlier. (I would also note that there is in fact a bit more leeway on Philip's age than you think, because of various general difficulties with calendars and chronology in the 4th century BC.)
Best regards,
Andrew
PS. See Table 4 making the point even more clearly here http://www.etr.org/recapp/research/Auth ... 04.htm#who
It found 7 members of a sample of 615 "urban males" who had become fathers at age 15. Probably around half had been 14 at the time of conception given 9 months gestation. These are the statistics for modern society where fatherhood at this age is strongly deprecated and penalised. We know that teenage Macedonian princes were actively encouraged to practice philandering with the opposite sex (as well as with the same sex). Alexander is said as a youth to have had the attentions of Callixeina thrust upon him by his parents.
I am shocked that you should think that Philip's age is a strong reason to believe he did not illegitimately conceive Ptolemy at 14. It would have been biologically feasible at least two years earlier. (I would also note that there is in fact a bit more leeway on Philip's age than you think, because of various general difficulties with calendars and chronology in the 4th century BC.)
Best regards,
Andrew
PS. See Table 4 making the point even more clearly here http://www.etr.org/recapp/research/Auth ... 04.htm#who
Re: Ptolemy the adoptive son of Lagos
I haven't taken any part in this debate, because of time commitments. However, I have been following it with great interest, and have enjoyed the arguments that have whizzed back and forth. I'm just going to make one point, which people might think is particularly pedantic, but which I think is pertinant.
Anything that happened after Ptolemy I could, basically, have set the trend for anything afterwards, while breaking the mould from anything that happened before.
ATB
I think it's difficult to use the examples of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy Ceraunus to argue for or against anything that Ptolemy I did, unless one can also produce examples or evidence prior to Ptolemy. For example, "marriages between half-siblings were not unknown" - if Ceraunus is the earliest example we have, then might it have been less "scandalous" because Ptolemy had set a trend by offering to marry his half-sister (whether or not he actually did so)?Chris Bennett wrote:I don't think that was Nina Collins' point. As I understood her she was merely saying that Diodorus would have noted such a close relationship if it were true. While marriages between full siblings, like that between Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, were truly scandalous, marriages between half-siblings were not unknown -- cf Ptolemy Ceraunus and Arsinoe II. But they were unusual, and this would have been a spectacular example.
Anything that happened after Ptolemy I could, basically, have set the trend for anything afterwards, while breaking the mould from anything that happened before.
ATB
-
Chris Bennett
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
- Contact:
WhatI said was that in my opinion (and, as you know much of ancient history is based on assessment of probabilities) it was pretty unlikely, not that it was impossible. Your own statistics -- 0.5% in modern times -- support this view.Taphoi wrote:A quick trawl of the web turned up this study of teenage fatherhood: http://www.juvenilejustice.com/teenfather.html
It found 7 members of a sample of 615 "urban males" who had become fathers at age 15. Probably around half had been 14 at the time of conception given 9 months gestation. <snip>
I am shocked that you should think that Philip's age is a strong reason to believe he did not illegitimately conceive Ptolemy at 14. It would have been biologically feasible at least two years earlier. (I would also note that there is in fact a bit more leeway on Philip's age than you think, because of various general difficulties with calendars and chronology in the 4th century BC.)
You ignored my second point, which I think is the more important one. According to Pausanias, the story was that Arsinoe was married off to Lagus by Philip when she was with child (Ptolemy). He was able to do this at 14?
Well, if Soter set the precedent with Cleopatra, Diodorus certainly should have mentioned itmarcus wrote:I'm just going to make one point, which people might think is particularly pedantic, but which I think is pertinant.
I think it's difficult to use the examples of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy Ceraunus to argue for or against anything that Ptolemy I did, unless one can also produce examples or evidence prior to Ptolemy. <snip>Chris Bennett wrote:I don't think that was Nina Collins' point. As I understood her she was merely saying that Diodorus would have noted such a close relationship if it were true. While marriages between full siblings, like that between Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, were truly scandalous, marriages between half-siblings were not unknown -- cf Ptolemy Ceraunus and Arsinoe II. But they were unusual, and this would have been a spectacular example.
Anything that happened after Ptolemy I could, basically, have set the trend for anything afterwards, while breaking the mould from anything that happened before.
ATB
Point taken. I don't have the cite to hand, but I recall there is an Athenian example, also a law allowing such marriages between children of the same father but forbidding them between children of the same mother. I think Carney discusses this in one of her papers.
Chris
Hi Chris,
Quite possible. Anyway, I was deliberately being ultra-pedantic.
It's a shame, actually. I really wish I'd had more time to get involved in this debate, because it is interesting and I think there have been some very good arguments on both sides (and some dubious ones too, probably, but that's half the fun! )
ATB
Chris Bennett wrote:Well, if Soter set the precedent with Cleopatra, Diodorus certainly should have mentioned it
Quite possible. Anyway, I was deliberately being ultra-pedantic.I think you are right that there are pre-Ptolemy Soter examples. I don't have them to hand, either ... but anyway, with reference to my pedantry already cited, you know what I was getting at.Point taken. I don't have the cite to hand, but I recall there is an Athenian example, also a law allowing such marriages between children of the same father but forbidding them between children of the same mother. I think Carney discusses this in one of her papers.
It's a shame, actually. I really wish I'd had more time to get involved in this debate, because it is interesting and I think there have been some very good arguments on both sides (and some dubious ones too, probably, but that's half the fun!
)ATB
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
You are wrong to compare the probabilityof 14 with the probability of fatherhood at all other ages, because the latter allows a much greater duration to achieve fatherhood. Rather the probability at 14 should be compared with the probability for some other single year. We can say for example that in a town like Rochester in the modern US it is about ten times more likely that a man will conceive a child at the age of 20 than at the age of 14. Thus it is not even significantly statistically unlikely that Philip could have conceived Ptolemy at 14. It is quite wrong to cite Philip's age as a reason to disbelieve the story.
As for Pausanius, I cannot see any problem for the view that Ptolemy was fathered by Philip. It is either possible that Philip as a royal prince really did negotiate the marriage to Lagos, else Pausanius is reading something into the story which was not in the ultimate source, else Lucian is wrong about Ptolemy's age and he was fathered when Philip was already king.
On the matter of Diodorus you continue to pursue arguments from his silence, even though there are good reasons for Hieronymus (Diodorus' source) to have exercised discretion in these matters. This is not sound historical method. Arrian does not mention the Branchidae, but that is not a sound reason to argue that they did not exist.
Best wishes,
Andrew
As for Pausanius, I cannot see any problem for the view that Ptolemy was fathered by Philip. It is either possible that Philip as a royal prince really did negotiate the marriage to Lagos, else Pausanius is reading something into the story which was not in the ultimate source, else Lucian is wrong about Ptolemy's age and he was fathered when Philip was already king.
On the matter of Diodorus you continue to pursue arguments from his silence, even though there are good reasons for Hieronymus (Diodorus' source) to have exercised discretion in these matters. This is not sound historical method. Arrian does not mention the Branchidae, but that is not a sound reason to argue that they did not exist.
Best wishes,
Andrew