The Parmenio conundrum.

[Paralus]

I've always been fascinated at the treatment of Parmenio in the "Alexander Histories". What do other posters think? My view follows (pardon the length - difficult to render in a couple of paragraphs!)The antagonism of Alexander towards Parmenio has its roots in the accession to the throne by Alexander. Philotas GÇô vain and demonstrative though he may have been GÇô is largely irrelevant in the scheme of things and serves as Alexander's trigger.At the time of Philip's murder GÇô regardless of the ins and outs of its arranging GÇô Macedonia was to embark upon its Asian adventure. At the Hellespont waited Parmenio in command of 10,000 Macedonian infantry and some 1,000 cavalry. Attalus, Parmenio's son in law, was also a commander. Alexander, after his father's murder is proposed by Alexander of Lyncestas as rightful heir and supported to the hilt by Antipater. The time is ripe for civil war unless the Macedonian Hellespontine army and its command are brought "into the fold". This Alexander achieved by paying Parmenio's price. Parmenio, showing a loyalty that did not waver right down to his murder, promptly disposed of his son in law Attalus and brought the critical support of the "lowland" barons to Alexander's kingship.The price? After Alexander joins the Hellespontine army for the invasion we find the following: Nicanor (son) in command of the "Shield Bearers"; Nicanor (another son) as admiral; Coenus (ironically as good a judge as his father in law, he is complicit in his later murder) in command of a phalanx battalion (a position he remained in until his convenient death after the Indian rebellion) and Philotas GÇô suddenly commander of the Companion Cavalry. Only Parmenio's brother Asander missed a senior posting GÇô a situation promptly rectified when (after Granicus) he is made Satrap of Lydia.The above throws a light on the "envy and ill will" that Plutarch describes accruing to Philotas and the fact that he had many enemies among the officer corps. When Alexander is told of Philotas' drunken bragging (to Antigone GÇô Philotas' lover), he recognises (as he never fails to do GÇô in court intrigue as much as battle) an opportunity too good to let slide. As Plutarch puts it, Alexander "commanded her to continue her intrigue with Philotas, and give him an account from time to time of all that should fall from him to this purpose". In other words, Alexander took control of the "plot" or spying against Philotas. Cont...

[Paralus]

Plutarch GÇô using an unidentified source GÇô describes an entirely different picture to the other sources we have. He makes it plain that Philotas had no knowledge of the "plot". Indeed, he shows the two informants approaching him to see the King twice GÇô both times keeping the subject matter (of Dimnus GÇô what a name) to themselves. It is only after Dimnus is killed resisting arrest (and thus the only real source for information on the "plot" dead) that Philotas' enemies accuse him of "thousands" of grounds of suspicion before the King.

Plutarch well knew the sources GÇô he names them many times. Yet in this instance he prefers this version (from whom we don't know) which clearly indicates that Philotas was not appraised of the "plot". The reason is that he is clearly uncomfortable with the entire incident GÇô as he makes plain when discussing the murder of Parmenio subsequent upon Philotas death. As Badian (ATG in Fact and Fiction, Oxford Uni, 2000) argues:"However, he could not pursue his case to its obvious conclusion and accuse Alexander of arranging the judicial murder of Philotas as well as the undeniable murder of Parmenio: that would have destroyed the image of Alexander he tried to convey and made him out to be a despicable tyrant."And so, in the absence of the unfortunately monikered Dimnus (no wonder Plutarch calls him Limnus), Plutarch has him accused on the grounds of "thousands" of suspicions GÇô with no one left to corroborate. And so the house of Parmenio comes to an ignominious end and six years after exacting his price, Parmenio pays the final account.It goes a long way to explaining the derisory slant in which the main extant sources portray him: old, cautious to a fault and constantly corrected, reproached and overshadowed by the King. Certainly not the bold general who, immediately after Issus, led the charge on Damascus (through some 350km of enemy territory) and captured Darius' baggage train.Only a couple more paragraphs...

[Paralus]

Plutarch GÇô using an unidentified source GÇô describes an entirely different picture to the other sources we have. He makes it plain that Philotas had no knowledge of the "plot". Indeed, he shows the two informants approaching him to see the King twice GÇô both times keeping the subject matter (of Dimnus GÇô what a name) to themselves. It is only after Dimnus is killed resisting arrest (and thus the only real source for information on the "plot" dead) that Philotas' enemies accuse him of "thousands" of grounds of suspicion before the King.

Plutarch well knew the sources GÇô he names them many times. Yet in this instance he prefers this version (from whom we don't know) which clearly indicates that Philotas was not appraised of the "plot". The reason is that he is clearly uncomfortable with the entire incident GÇô as he makes plain when discussing the murder of Parmenio subsequent upon Philotas death. As Badian (ATG in Fact and Fiction, Oxford Uni, 2000) argues:"However, he could not pursue his case to its obvious conclusion and accuse Alexander of arranging the judicial murder of Philotas as well as the undeniable murder of Parmenio: that would have destroyed the image of Alexander he tried to convey and made him out to be a despicable tyrant."And so, in the absence of the unfortunately monikered Dimnus (no wonder Plutarch calls him Limnus), Plutarch has him accused on the grounds of "thousands" of suspicions GÇô with no one left to corroborate. And so the house of Parmenio comes to an ignominious end and six years after exacting his price, Parmenio pays the final account.It goes a long way to explaining the derisory slant in which the main extant sources portray him: old, cautious to a fault and constantly corrected, reproached and overshadowed by the King. Certainly not the bold general who, immediately after Issus, led the charge on Damascus (through some 350km of enemy territory) and captured Darius' baggage train.Only a couple more paragraphs...

[Paralus]

Interestingly enough, our first ancient source on Alexander material is Polybius. Unlike the "Alexander historians", there is no apologia in Polybius (Thebes is an example). He twice states the invasion plans for Persia were Philip's doing and that Alexander was carrying out those plans - and, he scrupulously apportions credit to all concerned rather than just to Alexander:"Besides their (Parmenio and other Macedonian commanders and generals) deeds under Philip, their achievements after his death along with Alexander established by common agreement their reputation for arete (virtue). For while a large share of the credit should perhaps go to Alexander as the overall commanderGǪwe should certainly give no less credit to his helpers and friends who defeated the enemy in many marvelous battlesGǪ" (8.10. 7-10).Some two centuries later this view undergoes an about-face and all the wise counsel and brave decisions are Alexander's alone. Further, Parmenio is given the role of the cautious old sop (whose courage deserted him at Gaugamela due to age) to Alexander's Achilles. Now why did that happen?Paralus.

[Paralus]

Interestingly enough, our first ancient source on Alexander material is Polybius. Unlike the "Alexander historians", there is no apologia in Polybius (Thebes is an example). He twice states the invasion plans for Persia were Philip's doing and that Alexander was carrying out those plans - and, he scrupulously apportions credit to all concerned rather than just to Alexander:"Besides their (Parmenio and other Macedonian commanders and generals) deeds under Philip, their achievements after his death along with Alexander established by common agreement their reputation for arete (virtue). For while a large share of the credit should perhaps go to Alexander as the overall commanderGǪwe should certainly give no less credit to his helpers and friends who defeated the enemy in many marvelous battlesGǪ" (8.10. 7-10).Some two centuries later this view undergoes an about-face and all the wise counsel and brave decisions are Alexander's alone. Further, Parmenio is given the role of the cautious old sop (whose courage deserted him at Gaugamela due to age) to Alexander's Achilles. Now why did that happen?Paralus.

[kennyxx]

Michael HiYour posts are always detailed and always make sense and to be fair realistic I think you have a slant that Alexander was more devious and rurthless than some apologists might claim.I guess what your saying is from the accesion Parmenio had Alexander by the balls. Maybe maybe not. Its fair to assume Alexander was solid enough as it was. If Parmenio was so solid maybe he would try overdo Alexander and go for ultimate power for himself. He had the influence and the soldiers to take the chance. The Antipater danasty gained control folowing Alexander.I would say Parmenio realised Alexanders worth and must have seen his abilities and astulteness to throw in with the young king of course for personal favours.With ALexanders personality I would calculate on the whole it was something he had to comply with. At the time he knewhe needed At least Parmenios good will and soldiers or indeed there could have been civil war. With Alexanders undying thirst for glory I doubt he liked it one but. He begridged anyone interfering with his chosen path.I see no reason why Alexander didnt ignore and rebuff Parmenios advive. It serves 2 points first to demonstarate he knew what he was doing and prove better than Parmenio and indeed Philip his nemesis. And secondly It must have in little wasy gradually humiliated Parmenio to the staff councel and made him look irrelevent.I think its a solid assumption. If Alexander had the choice from the beggining he would have got rid of Parmenio and his boys earlier. Or at least left him behing to keep Antipater company. We cant take away Alexander all round genius. If he had started the Campaign with Parmenios Macedonians but without Parmenio. The victories and glory would still be the same.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Michael HiYour posts are always detailed and always make sense and to be fair realistic I think you have a slant that Alexander was more devious and rurthless than some apologists might claim.I guess what your saying is from the accesion Parmenio had Alexander by the balls. Maybe maybe not. Its fair to assume Alexander was solid enough as it was. If Parmenio was so solid maybe he would try overdo Alexander and go for ultimate power for himself. He had the influence and the soldiers to take the chance. The Antipater danasty gained control folowing Alexander.I would say Parmenio realised Alexanders worth and must have seen his abilities and astulteness to throw in with the young king of course for personal favours.With ALexanders personality I would calculate on the whole it was something he had to comply with. At the time he knewhe needed At least Parmenios good will and soldiers or indeed there could have been civil war. With Alexanders undying thirst for glory I doubt he liked it one but. He begridged anyone interfering with his chosen path.I see no reason why Alexander didnt ignore and rebuff Parmenios advive. It serves 2 points first to demonstarate he knew what he was doing and prove better than Parmenio and indeed Philip his nemesis. And secondly It must have in little wasy gradually humiliated Parmenio to the staff councel and made him look irrelevent.I think its a solid assumption. If Alexander had the choice from the beggining he would have got rid of Parmenio and his boys earlier. Or at least left him behing to keep Antipater company. We cant take away Alexander all round genius. If he had started the Campaign with Parmenios Macedonians but without Parmenio. The victories and glory would still be the same.Kenny

[Efstathios]

Alexander wouldnt let years to pass if he wanted to get rid of Philotas or Parmenion.His soldiers' faith to him (the old guard)and will (up to a point that they couldnt continue anymore)show us who Alexander really was.His soldiers were the first to judge him.And they did it all the time.And they showed him great respect and love. An army never does that to a tyrrant.they would be forced to obbey and follow the tyrrant,but with Alexander that's not the case.His army would be the first to judge him if they thought that Philotas' death was unfair.There was a number of people who opposed Alexander's will to go up to the ocean.He gathered them toghether and convinced them to go just a little more.And in the end they persuaded him to stop and go back. If Alexander was that ruthless man or tyrrant who got rid of anyone that stood in his way, he would have gone further with his army that in a large part was consisted by persians and new arrivals from Macedonia.He could have gone further without the old guard considering the fact that he still had Macedonians in his army.But he didnt.HE ABANDONED HIS VISION FOR THE SAKE OF THE OLD GUARD. Doesnt this show us something?If Alexander was so ruthless and calculating as you suggest,and have manufactured ways to get rid of Philotas and Parmenion and everyone who stood in his way to the east,would he stop?Les discuss this. He could have send back the old guard (who were few anyway,most of them had already returned to Macedonia with great honors and wealth) to return to their homes having also great honour,and continue with the reserves from Macedonia and the persians and an army that was almost triple the size of the initial army.But when he got out of his tent that day ,after the soldiers kept pushing him to go back,he said "we are going back".

[Efstathios]

Alexander wouldnt let years to pass if he wanted to get rid of Philotas or Parmenion.His soldiers' faith to him (the old guard)and will (up to a point that they couldnt continue anymore)show us who Alexander really was.His soldiers were the first to judge him.And they did it all the time.And they showed him great respect and love. An army never does that to a tyrrant.they would be forced to obbey and follow the tyrrant,but with Alexander that's not the case.His army would be the first to judge him if they thought that Philotas' death was unfair.There was a number of people who opposed Alexander's will to go up to the ocean.He gathered them toghether and convinced them to go just a little more.And in the end they persuaded him to stop and go back. If Alexander was that ruthless man or tyrrant who got rid of anyone that stood in his way, he would have gone further with his army that in a large part was consisted by persians and new arrivals from Macedonia.He could have gone further without the old guard considering the fact that he still had Macedonians in his army.But he didnt.HE ABANDONED HIS VISION FOR THE SAKE OF THE OLD GUARD. Doesnt this show us something?If Alexander was so ruthless and calculating as you suggest,and have manufactured ways to get rid of Philotas and Parmenion and everyone who stood in his way to the east,would he stop?Les discuss this. He could have send back the old guard (who were few anyway,most of them had already returned to Macedonia with great honors and wealth) to return to their homes having also great honour,and continue with the reserves from Macedonia and the persians and an army that was almost triple the size of the initial army.But when he got out of his tent that day ,after the soldiers kept pushing him to go back,he said "we are going back".

[Efstathios]

"Recently Polybius's writing has come under more critical assessment. In Peter Green's view (Alexander to Actium) he is often partisan, aiming to justify his and his father's careers. He goes out of his way to portray the Achean politician Callicrates in a bad light, leading the reader to suspect that this is due to Callicrates being responsible for him being sent to Rome as hostage. More fundamentally he, as first hostage in Rome, then client to the Scipios and then finally as collaborator with Roman rule after 146 BC, is not free to express his true opinions. Green suggests that we should always keep in mind that he was explaining Rome to a Greek audience and that further of the need to convince his fellow countrymen of the necessity of accepting Roman rule which he believed as inevitable. Nonetheless, for Green, Polybius's histories remain invaluable and the best source for the era he covers."(Wikipedia) Polybius tends to be more realistic but surely he was of another school,the roman school,and saw things in the roman way.Plus, his is the most ancient source we have that still exists.But Arrian has based his work on Ptolemy and Aristovoulos who are the first ones,so we can partly see their own work in Arrian's Anavasis. Surely Alexander was partly based on philip's plans as for the first part of the invasion but i think that he must have put his stamp on them.

[Efstathios]

"Recently Polybius's writing has come under more critical assessment. In Peter Green's view (Alexander to Actium) he is often partisan, aiming to justify his and his father's careers. He goes out of his way to portray the Achean politician Callicrates in a bad light, leading the reader to suspect that this is due to Callicrates being responsible for him being sent to Rome as hostage. More fundamentally he, as first hostage in Rome, then client to the Scipios and then finally as collaborator with Roman rule after 146 BC, is not free to express his true opinions. Green suggests that we should always keep in mind that he was explaining Rome to a Greek audience and that further of the need to convince his fellow countrymen of the necessity of accepting Roman rule which he believed as inevitable. Nonetheless, for Green, Polybius's histories remain invaluable and the best source for the era he covers."(Wikipedia) Polybius tends to be more realistic but surely he was of another school,the roman school,and saw things in the roman way.Plus, his is the most ancient source we have that still exists.But Arrian has based his work on Ptolemy and Aristovoulos who are the first ones,so we can partly see their own work in Arrian's Anavasis. Surely Alexander was partly based on philip's plans as for the first part of the invasion but i think that he must have put his stamp on them.

[jan]

This is a fascinating question which has reawakened thoughts that I will keep silent here on this organ. But I must say while I do not daily read and drink Alexander as many of you do, I remember well the books that I have read, and this problem of Parmenio is always one that intrigues me. It is obvious that Parmenio is one of Philip's most trusted officers, and in a movie that I saw with Richard Burton, it was interesting to me to note tha the author there made the character of Parmenio the first one to defer and acknowledge the kingship of Alexander. I have always been a bit irritated with the relationship between Alexander and Parmenio as discussed in the sources, since it appears that anything that Parmenio suggests, Alexander immediately does the exact opposite. Even though, the dutiful and great general at the Battle of Gaugemela is who wakes Alexander from his deep and fearless sleep to do battle with the Persians. It is an interesting study in itself of these two men as they both seem to need each other in the course of their time. It is sorrowful for me to reflect upon which I will do at my own private journal since it awakened these feelings in me.thanks for the use of the word conundrum...takes me back to 12th grade in high school!~

[jan]

This is a fascinating question which has reawakened thoughts that I will keep silent here on this organ. But I must say while I do not daily read and drink Alexander as many of you do, I remember well the books that I have read, and this problem of Parmenio is always one that intrigues me. It is obvious that Parmenio is one of Philip's most trusted officers, and in a movie that I saw with Richard Burton, it was interesting to me to note tha the author there made the character of Parmenio the first one to defer and acknowledge the kingship of Alexander. I have always been a bit irritated with the relationship between Alexander and Parmenio as discussed in the sources, since it appears that anything that Parmenio suggests, Alexander immediately does the exact opposite. Even though, the dutiful and great general at the Battle of Gaugemela is who wakes Alexander from his deep and fearless sleep to do battle with the Persians. It is an interesting study in itself of these two men as they both seem to need each other in the course of their time. It is sorrowful for me to reflect upon which I will do at my own private journal since it awakened these feelings in me.thanks for the use of the word conundrum...takes me back to 12th grade in high school!~

[Paralus]

G'day Efstathios/Kenny,A couple of rejoindersGǪFistly the army following tyrants. An army follows winners. The reasons are pretty straight forward: winners don't die quite so much; winners win the loot. Notwithstanding, of course, the blood rush of the victory GÇô a bit of a drug.. Whatever else Alexander GÇô and his General Staff were GÇô they were inveterate winners. The army also (certainly by the time of Clietus' murder) knew what it had a relationship with when it GÇô posthumously GÇô declared Clietus guilty of treason!It's a poor metaphor (taste wise), but women (and sometimes men) stay with husbands/wives that treat them deplorably (bashing etc). In the Macedonian case, the end was reached in India. Coenus (Parmenio's son-in-law who had chosen his side when coming out against Philotas) steadfastly refused the King's rhetoric and relayed the army's ultimatum: no more."If Parmenio was so solid maybe he would try overdo Alexander and go for ultimate power for himself. He had the influence and the soldiers to take the chance."As I said in another thread Kenny, Caesar he was not. Not to say the thought didn't enter his head, but the chance to play for position (at sixty plus) and secure yourself and the family was the better option. Especially after Chaeronea/Thebes as you suggest.The idea of Alexander being a murderous thug is Victor Davis Hanson's GÇô not mine. I would say that to fulfil his ambitions, there was not much Alexander wouldn't do. Increasingly that became his way. This was not quite so apparent at the start and as above, "winners are grinners" as they say.Efstathios, Alexander had no choice other than to abandon "his vision" after the revolt. He was so happy about it he spent three days in church manufacturing the God's instructions for him to do so. And GÇô I'm sure GÇô redesigning the future sans Macedonian veterans. Something he put into action as soon as he returned to "civilisation". HE was in no position to do in India. Babylon/Opis and a totally different kettle of fish.I agree on the Polybius thing. He does write as a Roman "apologist" (too strong a word) but that in no way explains the totally different way he sees the greatest of Greek "heroes". More laterGǪwork now!Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Efstathios/Kenny,A couple of rejoindersGǪFistly the army following tyrants. An army follows winners. The reasons are pretty straight forward: winners don't die quite so much; winners win the loot. Notwithstanding, of course, the blood rush of the victory GÇô a bit of a drug.. Whatever else Alexander GÇô and his General Staff were GÇô they were inveterate winners. The army also (certainly by the time of Clietus' murder) knew what it had a relationship with when it GÇô posthumously GÇô declared Clietus guilty of treason!It's a poor metaphor (taste wise), but women (and sometimes men) stay with husbands/wives that treat them deplorably (bashing etc). In the Macedonian case, the end was reached in India. Coenus (Parmenio's son-in-law who had chosen his side when coming out against Philotas) steadfastly refused the King's rhetoric and relayed the army's ultimatum: no more."If Parmenio was so solid maybe he would try overdo Alexander and go for ultimate power for himself. He had the influence and the soldiers to take the chance."As I said in another thread Kenny, Caesar he was not. Not to say the thought didn't enter his head, but the chance to play for position (at sixty plus) and secure yourself and the family was the better option. Especially after Chaeronea/Thebes as you suggest.The idea of Alexander being a murderous thug is Victor Davis Hanson's GÇô not mine. I would say that to fulfil his ambitions, there was not much Alexander wouldn't do. Increasingly that became his way. This was not quite so apparent at the start and as above, "winners are grinners" as they say.Efstathios, Alexander had no choice other than to abandon "his vision" after the revolt. He was so happy about it he spent three days in church manufacturing the God's instructions for him to do so. And GÇô I'm sure GÇô redesigning the future sans Macedonian veterans. Something he put into action as soon as he returned to "civilisation". HE was in no position to do in India. Babylon/Opis and a totally different kettle of fish.I agree on the Polybius thing. He does write as a Roman "apologist" (too strong a word) but that in no way explains the totally different way he sees the greatest of Greek "heroes". More laterGǪwork now!Paralus.