Paralus, you bitter, bitter man.
Paralus wrote:Many see in the son far more ambition than the father. This is incorrect. There is no need to go into speculation about what Philip might have done; what he did should serve notice. Philip’s ambitions are often reduced to a “limited” excursus into Persia. This stands in stark contrast to what he’d already achieved.
I tend to my wonder less about
how far Philip would have gone and more about
where he would have gone. That is, would Philip have been more interested in heading still farther to the east following a consolidation of the Phoenician coast or even Babylon... or would he have looked to the west-southwest and Carthage?
I doubt very much – as opposed to another on this or another thread – that Alexander will have accomplished the same. He likely will have died in some “heroic” charge in yet another war which started behind his back whilst he was dealing with another war elsewhere.
I don't know that this is necessarily fair... Alexander survived his share of charges, albeit whilst suffering a number of wounds*. Philip, too, suffered wounds--injuries more crippling than his son. Perhaps in time Alexander would also become a Monopthalmos, like Philip, or limited to limping about.
* There is, of course, the incident with the Malians. I tend to favor Arrian's account, though, and thus view the incident under its own context. In my eyes, Alexander was going through a crisis as that point. He may very well have wanted to die at that point. Did Philip ever suffer that kind of "disappointment" from his men? Does that mean the father was more cynical, more understanding of how far he could push his armies, or an equal dose of both?
Another Arrian might note another Parmenion advising “sire, they have far more infantry and they command the heights. We might win this but at what cost? Perhaps several talents to Aristarchus and Thrasyllus and the hand of his daughter….” To which Alexander would reply “I did not fight the Illyrians, the Paeonians, the Thebans, the Amphipolitans, the Illyrians again, and the Phocians simply to buy victory here Parmenion!”
Isn't that more a case of post-facto propaganda, though?
That goes without the revulsion at the suggestion of marriage.
I'd posit that the main difference between father and son in this case was
need. Philip felt he needed to do certain things to win his alliances and/or battles. Clearly he was a cunning, brilliant man, but I also think it goes without saying that if he
could effect a lasting victory without marrying so-and-so or having to spend money, he would have done so.
I'd further argue that, when he had to, Alexander did settle down for a marriage of necessity (even though I might wish that there was
some romance in that affair).
Cheers,
P.
