Alexander banished from Macedon!

[smittysmitty]

After the marriage of Philip to Cleopatra and the wedding debacle between Attalus,Alexander and Philip, both Alexander and Olympias flee from Macedon. As a result of some conversation between Demartus and Philip regarding the internal state of affairs in Macedon, Alexander is recalled.Question is why was he recalled?That he lead the companions at Chaeronea successfuly and was needed for the forthcomming invasion doesn't really stack up, I think there were other capable commanders around at the time.That their was need for a regent in Macedon whilst Phil prepared for Asia, doesn't gell, as Antipater displayed statesmanship quality even prior to Philips death.That it looked bad to the Hellenes, as Demartus implies, sounds rather unconvicing. Like did it matter what the Hellenes thought? , after all they were a subjugated people.I'm at aloss as to why he was recalled!Thanks to anyone that may respond.Cheers!

[beausefaless]

Philip did care he was a politician, he wanted the consolidation of Greece to jell, by showing many dissensions and calamities in his house he thought it would be best to make amends with Alexander but good ole Olympias, the fly in his ointment, had other ideas and they did not include Philip.

[Kate]

Hi,Maybe it is sentimental, but I think Philip may have wanted to repair the breach with Alexander because he was going off to Persia. After all, there was a distinct possibility that Philip might never return, which as he had been severely injured in battle several times he must have been aware of, and there was a strong bond between them even if they didn't always get on. When you add in the political advantages of displaying a united front, it makes sense for him to recall Alexander.Cheers,Kate

[dean]

Hello,I am certainly with you Kate.
I think that we cannot always simply look at the political motivations or military advantages in the king's moves.At the end of the day, we are talking about human beings. Philip must have thought a lot about Alexander and loved his son?
(Maybe I am just being sentimental)
But I think that both of them had said and done things that they didn't mean (re- Euridice's wedding)and Philip felt Alexander was the only person who could sit on his throne.Well that is my opinion anyway,
Best regards,
Dean.

[Tre]

One does not leave an aggravated legitimate heir to the throne wandering around out of your control. It is also difficult for a Macedonian King to go to war without having an heir in place just in case...and it appears Cleopatra-Eurydike had a daughter and one can just imagine that really put a nail square in his plans. Certainly Philip was also thinking of what might happen to himself if Alexander were able to secure Persian, Illyrian or Athenian backing. He had pissed his son off enough that he could not rely on his son's affection not to try and secure the throne if he went off to war (remember that without Alexander, Antipatros was going to be Regent, and Antipatros was a supporter of Alexander) Alexander still had powerful friends that were part of powerful families in Macedon proper. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer or so they say. He waited until his son was back before he started to exile his friends one by one to show his power and the prince's future...Regards,Tre

[romaneyes]

Better to have a son as a friend, than as an enemy. Though I believe Philip cared for Alexander, I'm not counting on it alone. Afterall fathers killed sons, sons killed fathers, brothers killed brothers etc etc etc.
Alexander also held in his hands the future. By that I mean, he held the future leaders in his hands, sons of kings who allied themselves to Alexander, most likely in love, affection, and devotion, not to mention interest. It created an assurance of loyalty, on second-degree terms in a sense. Though Alexander could be killed, Philip would not hold the same loyalty from his peers, or at least not for long. Easier to hold devotion to a contemporary than to a newborn, or counselor. A future king, provides a security that cannot be beaten.
And for Philip to try on another war, without a grown heir at his side, would have been dangerous. Some people say that Antipater was there, sure he was, but he was no son of Philip. And most of the time, kings will prefer to be succeded by their own blood, unless in extreme circumstances. A death of Alexander, or exile or etc would have been a waste of a good, competent, already popular heir of the blood line.
Philip was wise to patch things up with his son, and Alexander even wiser to accept it. I think it showed prudence on both parts. A nation must be united before attempting to conquer others.I think Philip's problem with Alexander was Olympias, and not Alexander himself. But Philip knew that without Olympias he could not have had Alexander, literally from birth to manhood, and that must have driven him out of his mind. It would have been alright, if he could have found a way to permanetly separate both.don't know...see you all.

[Peter]

I'm sure you have heard this expression:"Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer". Alexander was too much of a threat to Philip among his ages-long enemy in the hinterland.This is why King Philip brought Alexander back from exile.Regards, Peter

[smittysmitty]

Peter, all I can say is,Spot On!I think you've hit the nail on the head, that Alexander posed a real threat to Phil, and that threat needed to be placed in a controlled
environment.That Alexander chose to leave his mother in Epirus and he off to Illyria speaks volumes to me of his intent.Briefly speaking, the Illyrian/Lynkestian border had historicaly proven to be more of a concern than any other region/peoples.
That the Upper Macedonians and Illyrians had up until recently clashed with lower Macedon perhaps offered an opportunity for Alexander to exploit.
The Illyrians were, for reasons unknown to us, supportive of Lynkestian autonomy and that a power base could be formed in this area once again was extremely plausible.
The potential for such an occurence neede to be quashed an by Phil and done so quickly.That he (Phil) lured his reluctant son back as heir apparant, I have no doubt., that it meant something to Philip, probably not.That an heir was neede for Phil to go on campaign in Asia, why?.. Alexander didn't! In any case there was always going to be an heir, whether from Phils loins or not.That Antipater was a supporter of Alexander; was he not genaral as well as regent for Phil when on campaign?That his return was needed for the consolidation of Greece; I'm sure Philip did not give two hoots about Greece as long as she behaved and did what was required by him.That Alexander would be Regent,. more likely than not, Alexander would have accompanied Philip in battle and shared the same probability of being lost in battle.That Philip loved his son, well this is a hard one! Cnsidering the history of Macedonian royals as well as the amount of time royals spent with their children, particularly Philip, I think it rather questionable this point of love.
That he loved him, I'd say he did. That he loved them as I love my children, probably not! Thats kinda biased, but thats comming from someone that isn't king.just my thoughts.Cheers!

[agesilaos]

The fact is that Alexander wasn't banished; he stormed off in a sulk, allegedly after the drunken exchange of insults at his Father's wedding feast. The evidence does not compel. His friends Ptolemy, Erygios and Laomedon, Nearchos and Harpalos (Arrian III 6) he mentions a loss of confidence in Alexander contributing to their banishment and this has been reasonably linked to the Pixodaros affair (though the historicity of that is dubious too).Philip coaxed him back because he did need an heir to prevent rival claims Alexander had beeen that heir ever since Arridaios' mental health was found wanting. All the other considerations play a part and Philip was anxious to stand well in the eyes of the Greeks, he wanted them to admit his superiority and acknowledge his leadership of their own freewills. It is quite a common phenomenon for those excluded from a group they admire to crave the pludits of that group.

[smittysmitty]

Hi Karl,I appreciate your comments.The title to this thread, Banished form Macedon was in no way meant to relate to the Pixodorus episode, and was more or less used with the intent to foster discussion through alternate interpretation. In any case, putting headings aside,I'm positively intrigued by your comments. You state that Philip needed an heir to prevent rival claims. Could you further expand on this point for me as I'm not sure of the necessity of an heir and how thta prevents rival claims. Also your point regarding the Hellenes I understand, I think! That through the cooperation of the Hellenes, it wouldn't be necessary to place garrisons in their backyard,although this did occur in cities closer to Macedon.Perhaps you perceive the Hellenic state in a different shape to what it was?If you could explain the significance of the Hellenic state, to the current and future aspirations of Philip, I would appreciate it.just my thoughts.Cheers!

[smittysmitty]

Oh! almost forgot!That Alexander stormed of in a sulk!, is not a fact, but an interpretation!Cheers!

[agesilaos]

OK the sulk was an interpretation but since he was not banished and shortly returned, given his volatile nature it is surely not unreasonable?The point you raise has nothing to do with Pixodaros I agree but the only banishments, those of his friends may have.My point about Philip's attitude to the Greeks is that it would be wrong not to acknowledge the emotional attatchment he had formed with his Southern neighbours, Athens in particular; his initial alignment is with Athens Her foreign policy causes the breakdown; He has Thessally under his heel but accepts only leadership in their Amphictiony, he defends the Delpic Oracle, Athens and Sparta both help the Phocians, he singularly fails to destroy Greek cities in the way Alexander did; in short his heart is ruling his head. The Greeks were not a nation but they were a people and he wanted to be that sort of person.