was alexander implicated in the murder of his father, philip

[kathy]

Can I please have come Evidence and Sources for and against the prosecution of alexander the great

[maciek]

There is no evidence for that. Some writers imply that, but no one officially admitted such theory. For me more reasonably sounds theory that conspiracy against Philip was made by Persians, but we have no evidence for any of such opinions. There is also a strong based version about Olimpias being the inspiration of that murder and Alex could knew something about it and didnGÇÖt react in any way, but do it make a murderer of him?Maciek

[susan]

If you go to the home page and look under the main characters, you will find an article on the death of Philip - Murder or Assassination. I'm sure that you will find some interesting ideas for your assignment there.Susan

[susa]

Was he prosecuted for that?

[Me]

This sounds like the familiar school exercise, in which a "jury" has to decide Alexander's guilt or innocence in a plot against his father. Are you with the defense or prosecution?

[agesilaos]

The sources are Diodoros Siculus Bk XVI 92, Justin IX5.8- 7.14 and XI 1ff, Plutarch's life of Alexander 9 and 10, there is a fragmentary papyrus P.Oxy 1798 but I have not been able to track this down myself. There are good discusions in Ellis.'Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism' and the commentary to Justin Bks XI-XII by W. Heckel which lists the major articles too.If Alexander was complicit then he was guilty however he has no motive and the agent of Philip's death was unlikely to be part of Alexander's entourage; scrutiny of the sources does not imbue one with confidence in their opinions; they are for the most part scandal-mongers and everyone loves a conspiracy-theory. He certainly cleaned out his cupboard by slaughtering any possible rivals. He was as ruthless as Hitler or Stalin but even they did not murder themselves into office, they merely exploited theeir power once they had gained it quasi-legally and the same is true of Alexander. Nor is it likely that Olympias was involved, but that is more arguable as she was losing influence.

[jan]

I have only one conclusion from the question that Alexander is supposed to have asked the Oracle at Siwa about his father's death, and that if all his murderers had been punished. Supposedly, the Oracle implies that Ammon is Alexander's father, and that indeed all the murderers of Philip had been punished, meaning that Alexander and Olympias are totally innocent. Why would he ask such a question if he had had any role in it?

[maciek]

Hi Janet I think he could do it for example to show everyone that he has no role in that... I think this proves nothing, because whether he was or not involved in any way in this he would like to show his innocence in there.
Maciek M

[Me]

Don't give too much away- this IS a school exercise!
I believe the method is usually to separate a class into defense and prosecution, then hold a "trial".... Is that how it is still done?

[jan]

I think that someone who would cross a burning desert to consult an oracle would not think that he could fool an honest oracle or person of wisdom. That seems a bit too stupid for me. The point of reaching the oracle was the difficult to get there, and so why tempt fate? I believe his intentions to be sincere.The only problem I have is that as all of history is dependent upon the sources, which source is it that says that these are the questions answered. One seems to say that Alexander told nothing about his interview but another says that he did ask if the murderers had been punished. It is all a matter of faith in some source.In the book by Weigall, the author suggested that a teacher who had told Pausanius that the fame of the person who is assassinated is what makes the assassin's infamy known worldwide is probably what caused the action taken. There is no evidence to suggest that Alexander had anything to do with it, and for that matter,none to implicate Olympias either. Fate!

[marcus]

Jan,As you know, I haven't read the Weigall book, but I suspect that Weigall has lifted a different story for his one about Pausanias.I think it is in Plutarch (but might be in Arrian, too, I can't remember off-hadn) where Callisthenes is reported to have been asked by Philotas how a man achieves fame. Callisthenes' answer is "by killing the most famous of men".I would doubt if this really applies to Pausanias, because Pausanias wasn't after fame, but revenge.Still, I don't know the full context of Weigall's comment.All the bestMarcus

[jan]

Hello Marcus,
I hope that you will read the book by Arthur Weigall when you find time. It is an excellent book as he is very careful in giving all his sources and credits. He is probably the most honest and most fair critic of Alexander for his times. I prefer it to the more recent as his anecdotes are so interesting, and he brings Alexander to life better than any historian or biographer that I have read to date. He cites peculiarities better than any other author thus far.
He also tries to avoid prejudices and biases which I have learned are rather commonplace.
His comment is directly pointed to Pausanius as apparently it was a teacher who had told him that bit of information. But possibly, you are right and he garbled it from the Callisthenes comment. As he is long gone, there is no way that we can argue that with him.
I just hope that you will read his version and hear him out. He made a comment about Alexander's having the ability to change his mind about an operation or judgement call midstream in doing battle that had caught my attention, for it had reminded me of a comment a friend of mine had made about myself years ago when we first came to Phoenix. That comment alone perked my ears up, and I thought it is a good thing that this is written before I even came into the world, or I would think that this man (Weigall) is sounding like O'Donnell to me.
So it goes...
HIghest regards to you,
Jan

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I've never actually seen the Weigall book, and it certainly doesn't show up on an Amazon search, so I suppose it must be a case of looking through second hand bookshops (if you think the current UK library system will throw it up, you can think again!).I think Weigall must have transposed Callisthenes' comment over to Pausanias, because I'm not aware that there is anything in the sources that even gives us that much information about Pausanias - certainly not about his education etc. But I'll have to read the appropriate part of Weigall's book - it might be that he's inferring that what Callisthenes said to Philotas was a standard idea, and so P. was likely to have been told it by his own tutors.All the bestMarcus

[maciek]

Hey Jan I also believe that his intentions was sincere, but also I think that he wanted to reach always few aims in any occasion or all possible aims. I see nothing bad in doing everything what he could to persuade his man that he is innocent. For them oracle was very important but I believe he realized that everything depends on him not so much on Gods.
Maciek MP.S. That book interested me also, I'd like to read it...

[jan]

Hi Maciej, I see. You believe that he is trying to convince his own men that he is innocent. Considering how he behaved after killing Kleitos, I believe that he is innocent also. Lord knows what kind of grief he would have shown towards his own father had he been guilty!