Political marriages! What was the point of it?

[smittyzback]

Seems a central theme when studying the History of Macedon, regardless of period,there are a lot of political marriages. But what seem s most amusing to me, they seem to ensure very little political stability. So what was the point of marrying of daughters to rival kings, chiefs,kingmakers etc,.or for that matter marrying them?. It obviously meant very little,apart from perhaps a temporary fix! Infact, I can't think of any union of marriage that had any lasting effect. (Off the top of my head)
Curious to hear what others thoughts are on this matter.Cheer!

[beausefaless]

Been done by many cultures through out history but you have valid point, it makes no sense.Sometimes they put halt to minor skirmishes but is it worth it? I agree with you.It was not possible to separate leadership from arete, people believed, because unusual or exceptional prowess was a natural manifestation of leadership. Since each man was ranked in accordance with his ability, arete became an ideal of self-fulfillment or self-realization in terms of human excellence specifically indicated by his skill and prowess as a soldier in war, and as an athlete in peace.

[marcus]

Philip's marriage to Olympias ensured a long and peaceful association with Epiros. Alexander's marriage to Roxane tied Oxyartes to him as a loyal follower at the very least until Alexander's death; and one could argue that A's 'association' with Barsine was helpful in ensuring Artabazos' loyalty (or was at least a contributory factor).All the bestMarcus

[susa]

I was thinking about this myself one of these days. I was wondering --- who could assure them that that whatsisname Oxyartes would not betray the pact, for instance? The *warranty* woulda been only the daughter he gave in marriage to A? Were those people then bind by these sorts of pacts to such an extent?

[Tre]

In the ancient mindset the point of political marriages was to bind you by bloodties into the'clan' and therefore any injury done you would be considered an injury done to the 'clan' and therefore the clan would react. This was how families protected themselves in ancient times from each other. Human nature being what it is, it didn't always work. Argeads hoped to avoid conflicts by marrying into their neighbor's royal families to assure 'peace' but of course it didn't always work, human nature being what it is.Regards,Tre

[jan]

Power is the point!

[Me]

Most marriages, then and now, in the upper echelons are based on factors other than "love". Marriage alliances
are made to ensure political position and power is retained or strengthened, to ensure financial holdings are secured or increased and to ensure bloodlines remain in the top bastions of the hierarchy.
The purpose of political marriages, as always, are to secure power, place and wealth, with a potential to increase these elements through the creation of heirs.
Alexander's vision of empire would have required such alliances- and though no guarantee is ever possible that human nature will not upset the best laid plans (someone bought with one alliance can sometimes be bought with a better offer- blood ties were one of the most powerful, but blood ties can occasionally be usurped with offers of greater wealth and power/position), marriage alliances were/are one of the best ways to do so.
Problem was not the marriage alliances but the fact that, like the present day mob, the men and women at the top were people bred and born to the desire for power. While Alexander lived, they (some grumbling along the way) allowed themselves to be ruled; when he died, it was a free for all, so the marriage aliances Alexander made were "null and void", as it were.. "Ah, the weaknesses of power"

[agesilaos]

I wonder if anyone here has read the Oresteia by Aescylus; blood crimes were considered the most heinous rather than the most common in ancient times.IT MATTERED!Philip II never murdered a relative; the slanders against Olympias have force because of their abberance. In the Hellenistic world the Gods died and realpolitik applies; Alexander lies at the crossroads, previous rulers guilty of blood-crime are execrated, we should remember that our scientific upringing excludes us from understanding the ancient mind set, and just as in dealing with other cultures today we need to look at their value system; we need not approve of it, but alien cultures need to be seen in their own light; it is an atrocity if a British solier disembowels a fallen enemy, to a Zulu it was a mark of respect, he was realeasing a fellow warrior's soul to go to whatever heaven.As a codicil Lysimachos, the most successful Diadoch annexed Herakleia Pontos over a blood feud stemming from a dynastic marrriage and the excuse was accepted as legitimate at the time

[Me]

I understand the dynamics in blood alliances probably better than most on Pothos.. we cannot assume that "the modern world" holds precedent everywhere; much of the world is still tied in with ancient ways and values and perspectives...but the fact remains, that human nature can oft overcome what seems impossible to believe.
And I think history proves that little acorn more than once!