pothos.org

Hello,It has been a while since I have posted anything myself on the forum- hope everybody is well.My question is regarding Ptolemy. After reading Renault you get the distinct impression that Ptolemy was the unofficial half-brother of Alexander- similar to Arrideous yet sometimes Renault conjectures a lot and then takes on her suppositions as fact and I was just curious because I don't remember reading anything in the sources about this.Best regards,
Dean.

The story did go around that Ptolemy was Philip's son. It was probably something that Ptolemy constructed during the power struggles following Alexander's death, to help legitimise his rule. There is a small percentage chance that it's true... but I think it's unlikely, really.All the bestMarcus

I guess we'll never know for certain about Ptolemy but it's a nice story anyway. Alexander's only legitimate brother was his half-brother Arridaios who was (deliberatly?) injured when an infant so was rendered mentally deficient.

Hello,
I also read in Renault too that Alexander had taken good care of his half-brother Arrideos as he took him on the Eastern expedition- mainly out of the clutches of Olympias.Best regards,
Dean.

What I've always found interesting is that Arrhidaios isn't mentioned at all, until after Alexander's death; and yet he was certainly there at the end. Of course, we don't know for sure that he was with Alexander throughout the whole campaign, although it is quite possible that he was, if only because of the Olympias situation.I wouldn't be at all surprised if Arrhidaios was also in the Companion Cavalry and fought in the battles, too. Even if he had "learning difficulties" there's nothing to suggest that he was incapable of fighting - and, in fact, what little the sources say suggest that physically he was perfectly capable.There's a really good article on Arrhidaios by Carney, which was (I think) in AHB.All the bestMarcus

It's only Justin but his source implied that Alexander had other brothers, including Karanos, all of whom he killed.Arrhidaios is mentioned prior to the end of the expedition, in relation to the alleged Pixodaros affair.I think it highly unlikely that he fought with the Companions, any military experience would have been mentioned upon his acclamation in order to demonstrate his worth; I know argumenta ex silentiones are weak but you need to obey commands and handle a horse to fight well and there is no indication that he could. He is attested as physically strong and nothing beyond that.

*If* Karanos did exist (and there's no agreement on that) then surely Olympias killed him, not Alexander? It's also an un-agreed point whether Alexander colluded in the murder of Kleopatra and her child(ren), or even ordered it ... but if he did then, yes, it would make a big difference.You can probably guess that I don't think Kleopatra had a son, and I don't believe that Alexander order his step-mother's death. (All the same, I reckon he found it very useful as a spur to getting rid of Attalos).All the bestMarcus

Hi all,have been reading some interesting material on Ptolemy recently, and it has been suggested that Ptolemy had Argead blood, not through Philip but his mother who was the great grand daughter of Amyntas I. Amyntas I had apparently a son named Bocrus (brother of Alexander I), who in turn had a son Meleager who then fathered a daughter Arsinoe who was Ptolemy's mother. Comes from an article by W.S Greenwalt.just thought I'd mention that, I found it quite intersting.also the sources suggesting Ptolemy was the illigitimate son of Philip are Pausanius,& Curtius Came accross this interesting site for those intersted in Ptolemy and his genealogy which includes the Argead dynasty.http://www.geocities.com/christopherjbennett/index.htmI guess what I find facinating is the thought of Argeads still existing, by blood through the maternal line, probably would have been heaps of them around! then again ,maybe not LoL
anyway!cheers.

I had a vague recollection that the story is in Pausanias - although I've never managed to read his entire work so haven't read it myself. Of course, by Pausanias' time the story would have been fairly common... I don't remember what Curtius says about it, but by the time he was writing almost any story could have taken hold... :-)Interesting about a matrilineal attachment to the Argeads - I don't recall hearing that, but it's certainly plausible. Cheers.All the bestMarcus

Sorry about the delay in answering this.We have to remember, of course, that the rhetoric in Curtius (et al) is unlikely to report more than the general substance of any speeches that were actually made. But anyway, it's just as likely that the *lack* of any mention of Arrhidaios' military experience was down to the knowlege/assumption that he had it - there was no need to mention something that was taken as read. Particularly if he wasn't singled out by any specific action/heroism.It's worth getting the article by Carney. The interesting thing about Arrhidaios is that the sources actually say very little about him, and we are prejudiced by centuries of speculation which have fuelled our modern idea of what was wrong with him. I don't think there's anything to suggest that he couldn't take orders and ride in the cavalry, fighting just as well as anyone else. He might not have been officer material, but it doesn't stop him from being able to fight.I'll stick with my theory that he fought in the Companions... :-)All the bestMarcus

Hello Marcus,
I find what you say about the regent king quite interesting. Again our sources leave the field so open for speculation. Something that Renault certainly did take full advantage of in her conclusion of the Alexander trilogy. In it she portrays him as a man with the mental age of a slavering three year old boy.
But as you say, maybe he was not so mentally retarded as we habitually imagine him to have been.
Was it not Olympias who was purportedly responsible for his childhood "accident"?. I have to admit that I can't seem to remember reading in either Arrian or Plutarch about the incident. Come to think about it- it was Olympias who was also depicted as cruelly bringing Arrideous' days to an end in the Renault novels- imprisoning him and subsequently poisoning him.Anyway, all the best,
Dean

Plutarch refers to Philip's incapacity in his Life of Alexander Ch 77 at the end. Phocion 33 also displays Philip's mental stability.I also do not believe that Kleopatra had a son, but Karanos need not and, indeed cannot be hers. I am also more ready to lay their blood at Alexander's door, it would be fashionable later to exculpate the king and vilify the mother. Just as it would be useful propaganda for Ptolemy to be Argaead. I confess ignorance of his lineage.

Which is all what makes it quite interesting. There are scant mentions in the sources about Arrhidaios' incapacity, and indeed what form it took. I wish I had the Carney article to hand, because she deals with it extremely well. Certainly her conclusion is what led me to use the term "learning difficulties" - one thing that's very clear is that he knew what was going on, even if he didn't really have the capacity to know and follow his own mind. There's one episode, when he draws his sword because he knows he's being threatened (by Meleager, I think), and when someone explains why he should calm down he totally understands. (The episode goes something like that, anyway - IIRC it's in Curtius Bk10).All the bestMarcus

I think there's one in Plutarch in one of the other lives where Arrhidaeous was being insulted and draws his sword befor being calmed down. Apparently he had a temper, but that certainly ran in the bloodline.I would doubt he was ever allowed to fight. I think it's pretty clear he was born normal, but something happened to him as a child that caused some sort of damage to his brain. I would agree as well with you Marcus, that Olympias was perfectly capable of having Cleopatra dispatched on her own. Once Philip was dead, she was not a threat to Alexander. It smacks of personal vengeance woman to woman. it would also have pissed Alexander off because she would have defied him by doing so without his permission and knowing full well he could nor would be able to do anything about it because she was his mother. As Alexander put so aptly, she charged a high price for his time in her womb But then, as I said, he was in no hurry to come back to Macedon, now was he? And if he had left Arrhidaeous in Macedon, someone could or would, use him as leverage against Alexander (as would any heir he would have produced before he left. He also avoided insulting Antipater or Parmenion since they both had eligible daughters).Regards,Tre

Hi Tre,Re the matter of Antipater and Parmenion having eligible daughters... I've never got my head around whether either of them had any 'spare'. Antipater had at least one daughter, of course, married to Alexander of Lynkestis; and Parmenion had at least one, married first to Attalos and then to Koinos (or two daughters, one married to each of the chaps).That would mean, however, that there weren't any other eligible ones until 330 at the earliest, when Antipater's daughter was widowed.So were there others that we know of for sure?All the bestMarcus