Would Alexander have gone to war against his own veterans un

[Paralus]

"Did Alexander any longer represent the traditional legitimacy of the Macedonian kingship? It was Philip's legacy versus Alexander's new world order."Ah Jim, you're a man after my own reading! This goes to the entire heart of the situation. What needs to be remembered is the relentless removal of the "Old guard" that Alexander had felt comfortable enough to engage in from Gaugemela on. This had everything to do with removing his father's "ghost" from both the army and Alexander's consciousness. Philip, before Heracles and anyone else, was the competition Alexander was engaged in. By extension, marshals such as Parmenio, Antipater, Antigonus and the like were seen as connected to that ghost.Dead right with respect to the "Silver Shields" as well. Always first among the "foot companions" they were the King's corps as the companion cavalry was on horse. As you point out it comes down to the "legitimate Macedonian King" question. Alexander was as far removed from the traditional idea of a Macedonian king as was the Persian he so dearly aped in many aspects (by the time of his death). It was acclamation of the army that provided that legitimacy. Alexander had well and truly tested that acclamation by the time of his death. That is not to say the army GÇô put to the test GÇô would not have re-affirmed that acclamation, but it would have been interesting to see.Yes, Monopthalmus immediately allied himself with Antipater (as regent) after Alexander's death GÇô but always with the main prize in his one eye, as subsequent events would show. Athens, as Polircetes' attentions would show, was central to any successful bid at empire GÇô indeed Philip's actions demonstrate the same.Kenny, I think you're getting there: senior Macedonians (not to say vast numbers of the army) were well and truly tired of the sops to the Persians. The new world order was not what they'd set out to achieve all those years back.Ptolemy would have GÇô as he indeed did GÇô stayed in Egypt. Here was a man well aware of his boundaries and ambitions. Aside from the constant running sore (for the Ptolemys) of Coele-Syria, he was happy to be Pharaoh of an Egyptian "Empire". The other marshals were a different case. It could be argued most wanted the lot GÇô certainly Monopthalmus did GÇô but all were tired of endless marches to the ends of the earth and rather impatient with this new Iranian Alexander.Paralus.

[kenny]

Paralau HailI am more than sure eaxch successor wanted the whole EMpire. Yet none of them had the balls the brains and the political attributes to do it.There fore they carved it up like a kike and each minion comander sat on there own meaninless throan. Was Ptolemy Even claimed Pharoah.From time to time as was Greek Custom the crossed over to try extend. Indeed they had dontrol of there own piece But stil remained devided and quarelsom. Very easy prey for a united developing Roman Empire. Much easier to take divided people . Impossible to crach unification and cohesion of Alexander.kenny

[kenny]

Paralau HailI am more than sure eaxch successor wanted the whole EMpire. Yet none of them had the balls the brains and the political attributes to do it.There fore they carved it up like a kike and each minion comander sat on there own meaninless throan. Was Ptolemy Even claimed Pharoah.From time to time as was Greek Custom the crossed over to try extend. Indeed they had dontrol of there own piece But stil remained devided and quarelsom. Very easy prey for a united developing Roman Empire. Much easier to take divided people . Impossible to crach unification and cohesion of Alexander.kenny

[Jim]

'One thing overlooked. If Alexab nder went against Antipater. Where would Ptolemy and his succesors stand.'
Hi Kenny, I think it is important to remember where in the stream time Ptolemy was when this potential struggle was developing. He was not master of Egypt but rather a bodyguard of Alexander. He only became satrap of Egypt following Alexander's death when he was rewarded with that post by Perdiccas after the two formed an uneasy alliance in the debate over the succession. So I imagine he would have remained loyal to Alexander as would all those south and east of the Taurus Mountains\Euphrates River line. The Anatolian and European commanders are the question marks. Antipater had no choice and as for the rest the purges throughout the return from the Indus may well have biased them towards Antipater's cause.
'To say these people generals missed Macedonia none were keen to return following Alexander.'
I am with you on that. Nor do I think many of the grunt soldiers were that tired of fighting since between they and their commanders another 40 years were spent away from home and in the struggle for power.
'If they were so deep rooted Macedonian why was Ptolemy so rooted to Egypt.'
After initially oppossing Perdiccas in the council at Babylon over the succession Ptolemy could see that among those present there would hardly be a concensus reached over the succession. He knew that if they could not settle such an argument that there was little chance that there would ever be peace now that Alexander was dead. So he reached an entente with Perdiccas in support of Roxane's child if a boy and in return gained the plumb choice of satrapies. A rich land with enormously defensable frontiers and all of north Africa to annex. Ptolemy was a happy man when he left the bickering in Babylon behind and entered Memphis, not yet as Pharoah, but as satrap under the aegis of the Regent, Perdiccas.

[Jim]

'One thing overlooked. If Alexab nder went against Antipater. Where would Ptolemy and his succesors stand.'
Hi Kenny, I think it is important to remember where in the stream time Ptolemy was when this potential struggle was developing. He was not master of Egypt but rather a bodyguard of Alexander. He only became satrap of Egypt following Alexander's death when he was rewarded with that post by Perdiccas after the two formed an uneasy alliance in the debate over the succession. So I imagine he would have remained loyal to Alexander as would all those south and east of the Taurus Mountains\Euphrates River line. The Anatolian and European commanders are the question marks. Antipater had no choice and as for the rest the purges throughout the return from the Indus may well have biased them towards Antipater's cause.
'To say these people generals missed Macedonia none were keen to return following Alexander.'
I am with you on that. Nor do I think many of the grunt soldiers were that tired of fighting since between they and their commanders another 40 years were spent away from home and in the struggle for power.
'If they were so deep rooted Macedonian why was Ptolemy so rooted to Egypt.'
After initially oppossing Perdiccas in the council at Babylon over the succession Ptolemy could see that among those present there would hardly be a concensus reached over the succession. He knew that if they could not settle such an argument that there was little chance that there would ever be peace now that Alexander was dead. So he reached an entente with Perdiccas in support of Roxane's child if a boy and in return gained the plumb choice of satrapies. A rich land with enormously defensable frontiers and all of north Africa to annex. Ptolemy was a happy man when he left the bickering in Babylon behind and entered Memphis, not yet as Pharoah, but as satrap under the aegis of the Regent, Perdiccas.

[Jim]

"What needs to be remembered is the relentless removal of the "Old guard" that Alexander had felt comfortable enough to engage in from Gaugemela on. This had everything to do with removing his father's "ghost" from both the army and Alexander's consciousness. Philip, before Heracles and anyone else, was the competition Alexander was engaged in."Excellent point about Philip and his lingering influence among the Macedonians Paralus. As you say this was an objective Alexander pursued for as far back as his victory at Gaugemela. The struggle with Antipater was a natural extension of this effort. It must have eaten away at Alexander that after all he'd done Antipater dared defy him as he would not have defied Philip. Alexander had secured his throne by the elimination of all competitors but now he found there still remained a rival against his authority. How could he kill a ghost? He couldn't but he could kill any who still paid homage to it and as you said from Gaugemela on he did. I agree with what I percieve your opinion to be, that Antipater was no fool and could clearly see what the return of Alexander meant to him and his legacy. He had been undermined by the Exiles Decree. The Oligarchs that Philip had established under the Corinthian League were being challenged by the returning democratic minded exiles. Word was out that Craterus was to replace him in Europe and he was to march to Babylon with no more protection than 10,000 raw recruits. Sending Cassander as his representative was a wise move although it put two of his sons in Alexander's hands. Still Antipater could trump that with his ability to arrest Cleopatra and Olympias even though she was in Epirus. All in all I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of Alexander's career and for the most part it has been ignored. I have always wondered why Alexander had gone to Ecbatana and was never satisfied with tha answers given in the books I've read. This discussion has given me insight into the possible reasons and for that I thank you for saving this thread from oblivion in time for me to read it. Pass a good day, Paralus.

[Jim]

"What needs to be remembered is the relentless removal of the "Old guard" that Alexander had felt comfortable enough to engage in from Gaugemela on. This had everything to do with removing his father's "ghost" from both the army and Alexander's consciousness. Philip, before Heracles and anyone else, was the competition Alexander was engaged in."Excellent point about Philip and his lingering influence among the Macedonians Paralus. As you say this was an objective Alexander pursued for as far back as his victory at Gaugemela. The struggle with Antipater was a natural extension of this effort. It must have eaten away at Alexander that after all he'd done Antipater dared defy him as he would not have defied Philip. Alexander had secured his throne by the elimination of all competitors but now he found there still remained a rival against his authority. How could he kill a ghost? He couldn't but he could kill any who still paid homage to it and as you said from Gaugemela on he did. I agree with what I percieve your opinion to be, that Antipater was no fool and could clearly see what the return of Alexander meant to him and his legacy. He had been undermined by the Exiles Decree. The Oligarchs that Philip had established under the Corinthian League were being challenged by the returning democratic minded exiles. Word was out that Craterus was to replace him in Europe and he was to march to Babylon with no more protection than 10,000 raw recruits. Sending Cassander as his representative was a wise move although it put two of his sons in Alexander's hands. Still Antipater could trump that with his ability to arrest Cleopatra and Olympias even though she was in Epirus. All in all I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of Alexander's career and for the most part it has been ignored. I have always wondered why Alexander had gone to Ecbatana and was never satisfied with tha answers given in the books I've read. This discussion has given me insight into the possible reasons and for that I thank you for saving this thread from oblivion in time for me to read it. Pass a good day, Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim. I indeed passed a good day: entire extant family Christmas gathering. I myself acted out the part of Alexander with for too much decent red (not to mention a seemingly bottomless beer stein). I have been paying for it all day. With luck, the wine was not laced and a fever will not set in!The most cogent reason for the journey to Opis was to commission the 30,000 (the "in your Macedonian face") so called "successors", the Iranians that had spent the last three years or so being trained in the Macedonian fashion. This GÇô atop the enforced oriental weddings GÇô proved the last straw and led to revolt number two. (I shall take this up on Kenny's thread a little later). Alexander though, knew what he was doing and promptly told them to "bugger-off" home and gave them Craterus GÇô the newly appointed viceroy (take that Antipater) to take them home.At this stage I believe Antipater had made up his mind. In sending Cassander to "negotiate" with Alexander it is most probable that another part of this mission was to see which way the wind was blowing amongst the high command. A group of marshals heartily sick of the endless campaigning, world and war without end, amen. Remember, Antipater had the entire "home army" with him. Were he to march on Alexander he would need a little more than this even though they were fresh troops. What would Monophthalmos contribute should he join? The answer may have been sunning itself in Cilicia.Why is it that Craterus, almost one year on had still not moved beyond Cilicia? For what was he waiting? Is it possible He was in on something with Cassander and Antipater? Anripater need have no doubt that a reckoning was coming. He had watched all others like himself (Monophthalmos aside) undergo methodical elimination and he had disobeyed the summons of his King. Even though he was seventy odd, Alexander was most unlikely to wait on nature accomplishing this task on his behalf.For the life of me I can't imagine what Craterus and some ten thousand experienced veterans GÇô veterans no longer much enamoured of their king GÇô were doing. Possibly they (like Moses and the Jews) had lost the map and were to spend forty years wandering about Cilicia and Cappadocia? Must have been waiting for something to occur wouldn't one think?Something was afoot I believe.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim. I indeed passed a good day: entire extant family Christmas gathering. I myself acted out the part of Alexander with for too much decent red (not to mention a seemingly bottomless beer stein). I have been paying for it all day. With luck, the wine was not laced and a fever will not set in!The most cogent reason for the journey to Opis was to commission the 30,000 (the "in your Macedonian face") so called "successors", the Iranians that had spent the last three years or so being trained in the Macedonian fashion. This GÇô atop the enforced oriental weddings GÇô proved the last straw and led to revolt number two. (I shall take this up on Kenny's thread a little later). Alexander though, knew what he was doing and promptly told them to "bugger-off" home and gave them Craterus GÇô the newly appointed viceroy (take that Antipater) to take them home.At this stage I believe Antipater had made up his mind. In sending Cassander to "negotiate" with Alexander it is most probable that another part of this mission was to see which way the wind was blowing amongst the high command. A group of marshals heartily sick of the endless campaigning, world and war without end, amen. Remember, Antipater had the entire "home army" with him. Were he to march on Alexander he would need a little more than this even though they were fresh troops. What would Monophthalmos contribute should he join? The answer may have been sunning itself in Cilicia.Why is it that Craterus, almost one year on had still not moved beyond Cilicia? For what was he waiting? Is it possible He was in on something with Cassander and Antipater? Anripater need have no doubt that a reckoning was coming. He had watched all others like himself (Monophthalmos aside) undergo methodical elimination and he had disobeyed the summons of his King. Even though he was seventy odd, Alexander was most unlikely to wait on nature accomplishing this task on his behalf.For the life of me I can't imagine what Craterus and some ten thousand experienced veterans GÇô veterans no longer much enamoured of their king GÇô were doing. Possibly they (like Moses and the Jews) had lost the map and were to spend forty years wandering about Cilicia and Cappadocia? Must have been waiting for something to occur wouldn't one think?Something was afoot I believe.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim. Posted this on the wrong bloody post from yourself - so I'll just repost it here where it belongs!I indeed passed a good day: entire extant family Christmas gathering. I myself acted out the part of Alexander with for too much decent red (not to mention a seemingly bottomless beer stein). I have been paying for it all day. With luck, the wine was not laced and a fever will not set in!The most cogent reason for the journey to Opis was to commission the 30,000 (the "in your Macedonian face") so called "successors", the Iranians that had spent the last three years or so being trained in the Macedonian fashion. This GÇô atop the enforced oriental weddings GÇô proved the last straw and led to revolt number two. (I shall take this up on Kenny's thread a little later). Alexander though, knew what he was doing and promptly told them to "bugger-off" home and gave them Craterus GÇô the newly appointed viceroy (take that Antipater) to take them home.At this stage I believe Antipater had made up his mind. In sending Cassander to "negotiate" with Alexander it is most probable that another part of this mission was to see which way the wind was blowing amongst the high command. A group of marshals heartily sick of the endless campaigning, world and war without end, amen. Remember, Antipater had the entire "home army" with him. Were he to march on Alexander he would need a little more than this even though they were fresh troops. What would Monophthalmos contribute should he join? The answer may have been sunning itself in Cilicia.Why is it that Craterus, almost one year on had still not moved beyond Cilicia? For what was he waiting? Is it possible He was in on something with Cassander and Antipater? Anripater need have no doubt that a reckoning was coming. He had watched all others like himself (Monophthalmos aside) undergo methodical elimination and he had disobeyed the summons of his King. Even though he was seventy odd, Alexander was most unlikely to wait on nature accomplishing this task on his behalf.For the life of me I can't imagine what Craterus and some ten thousand experienced veterans GÇô veterans no longer much enamoured of their king GÇô were doing. Possibly they (like Moses and the Jews) had lost the map and were to spend forty years wandering about Cilicia and Cappadocia? Must have been waiting for something to occur wouldn't one think?Something was afoot I believe.

[Paralus]

G'day Jim. Posted this on the wrong bloody post from yourself - so I'll just repost it here where it belongs!I indeed passed a good day: entire extant family Christmas gathering. I myself acted out the part of Alexander with for too much decent red (not to mention a seemingly bottomless beer stein). I have been paying for it all day. With luck, the wine was not laced and a fever will not set in!The most cogent reason for the journey to Opis was to commission the 30,000 (the "in your Macedonian face") so called "successors", the Iranians that had spent the last three years or so being trained in the Macedonian fashion. This GÇô atop the enforced oriental weddings GÇô proved the last straw and led to revolt number two. (I shall take this up on Kenny's thread a little later). Alexander though, knew what he was doing and promptly told them to "bugger-off" home and gave them Craterus GÇô the newly appointed viceroy (take that Antipater) to take them home.At this stage I believe Antipater had made up his mind. In sending Cassander to "negotiate" with Alexander it is most probable that another part of this mission was to see which way the wind was blowing amongst the high command. A group of marshals heartily sick of the endless campaigning, world and war without end, amen. Remember, Antipater had the entire "home army" with him. Were he to march on Alexander he would need a little more than this even though they were fresh troops. What would Monophthalmos contribute should he join? The answer may have been sunning itself in Cilicia.Why is it that Craterus, almost one year on had still not moved beyond Cilicia? For what was he waiting? Is it possible He was in on something with Cassander and Antipater? Anripater need have no doubt that a reckoning was coming. He had watched all others like himself (Monophthalmos aside) undergo methodical elimination and he had disobeyed the summons of his King. Even though he was seventy odd, Alexander was most unlikely to wait on nature accomplishing this task on his behalf.For the life of me I can't imagine what Craterus and some ten thousand experienced veterans GÇô veterans no longer much enamoured of their king GÇô were doing. Possibly they (like Moses and the Jews) had lost the map and were to spend forty years wandering about Cilicia and Cappadocia? Must have been waiting for something to occur wouldn't one think?Something was afoot I believe.

[kenny]

Paralus HailJust a question for yourself. With all your reasoning reading and Understanding. Do you believe Alexander and Indeed Hepheastion died of some unexplained mystery Ilness that still hardly can be explained today.A guy who has been blaimed to have been shot Boozed up and suffering from a ^ month old arrow wound. Ill argue this till the day hes found and examined. -ú2 he was a very young man strong as a ox Drank no more than any other Macedonian. And was heightened with thoughts of western Conquest. Even building a huge Harbout at Babylon. He must have already had a huge fleet part of which sailed from India.If you watch a Bruce Lee movie called fist Of Fury He is looking into the death of his Teacher. His Character famously says " A man like that just doesnt Die"Of course Dying young creates great legends and sometimes does them a favour. But this guy had the time and the talent to make it muck more.If you ever get the chance to find a programe on the Discovery. You will find a programe where a Scotland Yard investigator with the eveidenve as much as he has looked in the case. Part of the case followed day by day poisoning of a dummy in line with the chronicles of Alexanders final 10 days. And with the technology. The Dumy died at the exact time. the teory was that Alexander was initially poisoned then over time kept been administered poison until he died.Now the Detective threw out the Poison theory for one reason he said Poisoning was not the Macedonian way.If we loof throughout Macedonian and indeed GreeK ancients Indeeed poisoning was the way. And Indeed Cassander poisoned the whole lot of Alexanders blood line.regardsKenny

[kenny]

Paralus HailJust a question for yourself. With all your reasoning reading and Understanding. Do you believe Alexander and Indeed Hepheastion died of some unexplained mystery Ilness that still hardly can be explained today.A guy who has been blaimed to have been shot Boozed up and suffering from a ^ month old arrow wound. Ill argue this till the day hes found and examined. -ú2 he was a very young man strong as a ox Drank no more than any other Macedonian. And was heightened with thoughts of western Conquest. Even building a huge Harbout at Babylon. He must have already had a huge fleet part of which sailed from India.If you watch a Bruce Lee movie called fist Of Fury He is looking into the death of his Teacher. His Character famously says " A man like that just doesnt Die"Of course Dying young creates great legends and sometimes does them a favour. But this guy had the time and the talent to make it muck more.If you ever get the chance to find a programe on the Discovery. You will find a programe where a Scotland Yard investigator with the eveidenve as much as he has looked in the case. Part of the case followed day by day poisoning of a dummy in line with the chronicles of Alexanders final 10 days. And with the technology. The Dumy died at the exact time. the teory was that Alexander was initially poisoned then over time kept been administered poison until he died.Now the Detective threw out the Poison theory for one reason he said Poisoning was not the Macedonian way.If we loof throughout Macedonian and indeed GreeK ancients Indeeed poisoning was the way. And Indeed Cassander poisoned the whole lot of Alexanders blood line.regardsKenny

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny,Yes I saw the Discovery Channel programme. I'm not so sanguine about those sort of programmes though the case made was fairly rigorous.The fact is you're never going to know. I'd guess you'd know my view (as most contributors to the forum) with respect to where Alexander sat in the affections of his marshals, troops and subjects by the time of his death.There is no direct evidence that he was poisoned. There is a tradition that this may have occurred and that it was denied (as you would so clearly expect) vociferously at the time.My view is that the ingredients (pardon the pun) were all at hand for a poisoning or removal. The counter argument is often that poisoning is not the Macedonian way. To which I would say: poisoning is far better for a group decision than having one of the conspirators attempt to run him through. Look at it from the perspective of those who would succeed him. Far better he die of "disease" than have someone or group the clear murderers and focus of subsequent anger. The Macedonians had been there with Philip. It's one thing to play traditional Macedonian succession games at home in Macedonia. It is quite another to do that in the middle of a vast Asian empire where the complete loyalty of the troops was paramount.Was there a coterie of marshals that wanted Alexander out of the way? I believe there was. Did they do it? If they did, poisoning followed by a planned succession would be the way to go. Hard to say but I would lean toward yes. Human nature (un)did the rest in the games that followed the assassination.Be nice to know though.

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny,Yes I saw the Discovery Channel programme. I'm not so sanguine about those sort of programmes though the case made was fairly rigorous.The fact is you're never going to know. I'd guess you'd know my view (as most contributors to the forum) with respect to where Alexander sat in the affections of his marshals, troops and subjects by the time of his death.There is no direct evidence that he was poisoned. There is a tradition that this may have occurred and that it was denied (as you would so clearly expect) vociferously at the time.My view is that the ingredients (pardon the pun) were all at hand for a poisoning or removal. The counter argument is often that poisoning is not the Macedonian way. To which I would say: poisoning is far better for a group decision than having one of the conspirators attempt to run him through. Look at it from the perspective of those who would succeed him. Far better he die of "disease" than have someone or group the clear murderers and focus of subsequent anger. The Macedonians had been there with Philip. It's one thing to play traditional Macedonian succession games at home in Macedonia. It is quite another to do that in the middle of a vast Asian empire where the complete loyalty of the troops was paramount.Was there a coterie of marshals that wanted Alexander out of the way? I believe there was. Did they do it? If they did, poisoning followed by a planned succession would be the way to go. Hard to say but I would lean toward yes. Human nature (un)did the rest in the games that followed the assassination.Be nice to know though.