Alexander the Great was indeed the son of King Philip II of Macedonia to Olympias. The claim that Alexander was the son of Zeus was both his illusion as a young boy out of his admiration of great heroes and gods of Athens in which according to Cawthorne, he (Alexander) could claim descent from Zeus himself, the chief deity in the Greek pantheon, and his fathers propaganda against his wife Olympias when he divorced her to marry Cleopatra.
Undeniably, Alexanders relationship with his father during his early years was something to be admired of as he was groomed by his father to be his next successor. At age eight, the king bought him a horse worth 13 talents, a lifetime earnings for an ordinary man of that time. King Philip employed Aristotle to be his sons personal teacher more importantly, Alexander at age 16 was appointed to occupy the throne while his father was busy expanding his kingdom. This opportunity allowed him to prove himself as a great man in war he put down a rebellion of the Maedi people and conquered the Thrace City which he renamed after his name as Alexandropolis.
Things went wrong between him and his father when the latter divorced Olympias and married a young lady named Cleopatra. Alexander became even so furious when his father frankly declared that if he would have another son with Cleopatra, he would be the formidable rival to Alexander for the throne. King Phillip spread the rumors that Olympias was an adulterer and Alexander was an illegitimate child this made Alexander infuriated of his father. The claim that Alexander would be the assassin of King Philip was attributed to this more so, when Alexander threw a chalice of wine on Attalus face and King Philip drew his sword not at Attalus who had insulted his son, but at Alexander himself. The disagreement between the father and son did not last long for the father recalled the son back to Pella.
The Assassination of King Philip II
Despite that there were reasons that would associate Alexander with the assassination of his father still many claim that it was not Alexander and his mother Olympias who originated the assassination. There were few historical accounts that would prove that Alexander was innocent of the plot. Instead, another man in the name of Pausanias planned and carried out the assassination.
King Philip II was 47 years old when he was killed the incident took place very ordinarily during a grand celebration in his kingdom. There was a celebration in the court yard and King Philip was the center of the occasion though it was part of the wedding celebration of his daughter with her uncle, the King of Epirus who was the brother of Olympias. In the midst of the ceremony while King Philip was entering the orchestra, Pausanias approached him and stabbed him to death. This man did not successfully escape because he was also murdered by the people who witnessed the wedding celebration.
The Innocence of Alexander in the Assassination of His Father
At the death of King Philip II, Alexander was automatically enthroned. For many critics, it was a perfect indication that would associate Alexander in the murder of King Philip. There were historical accounts that linked Olympias in the event while other authors of that period contested the reports to be wrong. Olympias was thought to be the main suspect because she was divorced, dethroned and driven out by King Philip II in favor of Cleopatra, whom King Philip II married. Her jealousy of her might be exceedingly immense that his son Alexander would not be the next king of Macedonia.
Either way, two opposing opinions have to be examined carefully because certain incidents really suggested to the possible motives that both Alexander and Pausanias might have against King Philip. N.G.L. Hammond examined the reliability of various historical accounts pertaining to the assassination, namely Satyrus, Plutarch, Justin and Diodorus, in which he claimed the latter to be the author who gave the most reliable facts about the incident.
Accordingly, Hammond extracted the different views of those authors suggesting that Olympias with her son Alexander instigated the crime. Both Justin and Plutarch stated that Olympias was behind the assassination and not Alexander but later agreed that people believed that both of them were instigators of the crime. Justin, according to Sir William Smith, mentioned few related stories that linked to Olympias involvement. He noted that Olympias provided Pausanias with horse that he would use in his escape she placed a crown on Pausanias head when he died and she erected a monument for her. However, both Justin and Plutarch were doubtful because of some statements they used Justin used the expression creditum est and creduntur, while Plutarch was so cautious by using it is said as he narrated the account. Satyrus on the other hand cited Alexander who had the most valid reason to set off the assassination referring to the quarrel between Attalus and Alexander during the wedding-feast of Philip and Cleopatra. However, Satyrus explanation was beyond reality because of the fact that he did not know certain facts such as the ages of Philip, Cleopatra, Olympia and others involved in the story. Lastly, Diodurus historical account was more detailed and realistic proving the extent of actions between each sequence. Certainly, Diodurus explanation was nearer to truth than the other writers thus, leading to Alexanders innocence of the killing of his own father.
Alexander was innocent because he knew he was the heir whom his father groomed with great teachers of that time.
All the authors had mentioned that King Philip II became anxious for his action which he did in favor of Attalus in the courtyard. It was really to the disappointment of Alexander to escape and find refuge in the kingdom of his uncle. King Philip recalled him back instead and had him stayed with him in the palace while Olympias remained in the Apeirus. Alexander stayed with his father and mother-in-law in the palace until the baby was born. Though the relationship between the father and the son became shallow because of distrust and resentments, King Philip II maintained this relationship to perhaps fulfill his vow to Alexander to be the next king of Macedonia. Indeed, Alexander had never thought of becoming involved in the act of assassination because it would only ruin his character and future career. Alexander grew up with full understanding that he would be his fathers successor because it was promised to him. More importantly, Alexander at the age of 14 had been called king and Philip was fully aware of that as it was planned ahead.
Alexanders sudden assertion of his authority as the next king was a realization of his own fathers cream the invasion of Persian Empire.
Duiker and Spielvogel had noted that Alexanders early immediate assertion of his authority as the next king was meant to accomplish his fathers dream which is the invasion of Persian Empire. Indeed, right after the funeral of his father, Alexander delivered a speech stating that he promised to follow the principles of his fathers administration. His invasion of Persia which took place in 334 was a crusade to take vengeance against Xerxes for his assault of Greece. He made it clear when he reminded the troops of his fathers accomplishments by providing the Greek people with immense security from enemies and prosperity of living. All throughout his life, Alexander remained loyal to his father and to the realization of his fathers dream that resulted in the conquest of many nations in Asia by Greece or the most famous Hellenization period in history. He was moulded from childhood of morality and governance by Leonidas, Aristotle, and many other great teachers of that period.
Pausanias courageous assassination of the king was motivated by his vengeance
At first, it seemed impossible for a noble man like Pausanias to commit such action because in the first place he belonged to a distinguished family. He worked as one of King Philips personal bodyguards. He was very close to the king because of his beauty. However, his jealousy of another Pausanias who was Attalus friend put him into trouble with Attalus himself and his men. Neill recalled that out of the young Pausanias jealousy of another Pausanias, he had insulted him with harsh word, for the king was becoming so enamoured of another Pausanian. Attalus learned about this, but he did not retaliate at once until Pausanias, his friend, died in the battle. Attalus then invited the young Pausanias for a dinner and he got him drunk to carry out what he had planned. According to Neill, Attalus handed over the body of the unconscious young officer to the stable grooms to abuse in drunken licentiousness. For Lempriere, what happened was that Pausanias was grossly and unnaturally abused. After realizing what this group of men had done to him, he felt bitterly insulted and sought for justice before King Philip II. But the justice was not bestowed on him instead, Attalus received more honors from people and from the king for winning battles against Persia. Both jealousy and insult had overwhelmed him enough to kill his king.
Many modern historians believed that the motive behind Pausanias assassination of King Philip II was plainly out of his intention to revenge for the insult he received and jealousy of Attalus and the person who provoked him to do such was his master Hermocrates, the sophist. Lempriere noted that Pausanias went to him to seek advice, yet Hermocrates responded very confidently by saying, the most effectual way to render himself illustrious, was to murder a person who had signalized himself by uncommon action.
The possibility that Pausanias was the lone instigator of the crime is high because as stated in the history, same-sex relationship was accepted in the Greek culture. Most notably, it involved one adult male and one young male which could be between a king and one of his official it could be between a teacher and a student. In the story, it is clear that the young Pausanias was a lover of King Philip II. Neill openly recognized this relationship as something intimate he stated, This was not the first time a Macedonian monarch had been assassinated by a male lover. The jealousy went far as the King Philip II showed fondness of the other Pausanias and the fact that his complaint was not addressed seriously by the king. He felt neglected and rejected.
It was Alexanders mother Olympias who had the reasons to instigate the crime
Olympias was no ordinary woman she was the daughter of King Neoptolemus I of Epeirus. Her character of being naturally vehement and passionate was typical among descendants of kings and queens. For this reason, Olympias had the tendency to instigate war and upheaval against her rivals. Justin and Plutarch had recorded similar contentions which involved her. Her infuriating behavior was first manifested when she stimulated her brother to engage in war with King Philip II of Macedonia and at the time provoked the ruse between his son Alexander and his fathers officials in the court after she was divorced by King Philip II and married Cleopatra. Her craving for power did not end in the enthronement of Alexander she continually influenced Alexander in any way possible to control the palace. In the absence of Alexander, Olympias put to death her rival Cleopatra and her infant daughter which according to Plutarch (viii. 7. 7) was an act of cruelty. In addition, her opposition to Antipater, Alexanders successor, led her to incite her cousin Aeacides to make war against Antipater, which did not take place at all. Olympias turned to different people to carry out her plans against her rival but of no success because even her son refused to follow her.
Hence, the rumors of that period that it was Olympias who incited Pausanias to murder King Philip is highly possible. The fact that she knew the conflict between Alexander and Attalus which also involved his father, she would likely knew about Pausanias grievances against King Philip and his new family. Probably it is because Alexander sent her news after his return to the palace. Plutarch, Justin and Athens firmly believed that it was Olympias and not Alexander who instigate the crime. Smith noted, it was even generally believed that she lent her countenance and support to the assassination of the king by Pausanias, B.C. 336 (Plut. Alex. 2, 9, 10 Justin. Ix. 5, 7 xi. 11 Athens xiii. P. 557, c.).
Alexander in spite of his respect for his mother never followed her advices
On the occasions that his mother was influencing him and other prominent people to avenge war against King Philip II and Antipater, Alexander did not allow his mother to participate in the politics. Sir William Smith noticed how King Alexander was so warmly attached to his mother, and yet, he did not allow himself to be blinded to her faults. Alexander gave his mother all the respect and affection intended for a mother. When he was at war, he maintained close connection with his mother through sending her letters. Alexander was such a great warrior and yet faithful and respectful of his mother. However, this remarkable trait of him has limitation for he never allowed her to interfere in political affairs. Thus, Olympias possible involvement in the assassination of King Philip II did not involve his son Alexander in the same way as the assassination of Cleopatra and her daughter by Olympia happened while Alexander was in battles.
Hamilton gave his commentary on account of assassination in the palace in which he agreed based on the occurrences of similar incidents that in the history of Macedonia, assassination had been a traditional method of gaining or safeguarding the throne. However, despite the existing culture of violation in Macedonia, he noted that Alexander does not seem to have indulged in wanton slaughter.
Alexander therefore on the point of view of Hamilton and Smith has no involvement in the assassination of his father, King Philip II.
If Alexander was assassin, he would have done it when his father drew him his sword
The conflict between Alexander and Attalus had started when the latter proclaimed in the wedding feast of his niece and King Philip that the coming kings of Macedonia were to be borne by the newlywed. Attalus stated that the kings would be legitimate sons and not bastard Alexander, out of his annoyance retaliated by throwing something on Attalus. Attalus hit Alexander with his cup. King Philip who was already drunk drew his sword to kill his son but he tipped, fell and collapsed Alexanders response was not violent for he could not harm his father. Instead, he sided his mother and went with his mother in Molossa. Hammond also noticed how Alexander remained calm while staying away from his father. When his father sent a Corinthian man to recall him, he followed and left his mother at Molossa. It seemed that Alexander did not hold any grudge against his father despite what the latter had done to him and to his mother.
The assassination of King Philip was a turning point in the life of Alexander while his connection or involvement in the crime could be assumed as planned by himself considering the worsening relationship of his father and his mother. That particular event in his father life was very complex as it involved politics, personal, cultural, and sex issues because of the involvement of prominent people in the incident. The assassin was Pausanias, while the suspected masterminds were Olympias and Alexander. Pausanias had another agenda different from Olympias and Alexander while King Philip was at the center stage of it all. Thus the likelihood that Olympias and Alexander incited Pausanias to perform the crime was high because only they had the most valid reason to do it. Pausanias may not be able to do it all by himself somebody was behind him. However, based on the evidences presented in this paper, Alexander was innocent. It was his mother who had influenced Pausanias to commit such crime.
He was innocent on the account that he knew he was his fathers successor when he assumed the position as the next king, he focused on achieving what his father had dreamed of Pausanias, the assassin, purposely pursued his plan to revenge and for others vengeance Olympias based on her character and later involvement in the chaos was a proof that she singlehandedly manipulate Pausanias Alexander did not follow her mothers bad advices and Alexander did not inflict harm on his father when the latter drew a sword on him.Indeed, Alexander had no involvement in the assassination. He had no reason to do that.
Undeniably, Alexanders relationship with his father during his early years was something to be admired of as he was groomed by his father to be his next successor. At age eight, the king bought him a horse worth 13 talents, a lifetime earnings for an ordinary man of that time. King Philip employed Aristotle to be his sons personal teacher more importantly, Alexander at age 16 was appointed to occupy the throne while his father was busy expanding his kingdom. This opportunity allowed him to prove himself as a great man in war he put down a rebellion of the Maedi people and conquered the Thrace City which he renamed after his name as Alexandropolis.
Things went wrong between him and his father when the latter divorced Olympias and married a young lady named Cleopatra. Alexander became even so furious when his father frankly declared that if he would have another son with Cleopatra, he would be the formidable rival to Alexander for the throne. King Phillip spread the rumors that Olympias was an adulterer and Alexander was an illegitimate child this made Alexander infuriated of his father. The claim that Alexander would be the assassin of King Philip was attributed to this more so, when Alexander threw a chalice of wine on Attalus face and King Philip drew his sword not at Attalus who had insulted his son, but at Alexander himself. The disagreement between the father and son did not last long for the father recalled the son back to Pella.
The Assassination of King Philip II
Despite that there were reasons that would associate Alexander with the assassination of his father still many claim that it was not Alexander and his mother Olympias who originated the assassination. There were few historical accounts that would prove that Alexander was innocent of the plot. Instead, another man in the name of Pausanias planned and carried out the assassination.
King Philip II was 47 years old when he was killed the incident took place very ordinarily during a grand celebration in his kingdom. There was a celebration in the court yard and King Philip was the center of the occasion though it was part of the wedding celebration of his daughter with her uncle, the King of Epirus who was the brother of Olympias. In the midst of the ceremony while King Philip was entering the orchestra, Pausanias approached him and stabbed him to death. This man did not successfully escape because he was also murdered by the people who witnessed the wedding celebration.
The Innocence of Alexander in the Assassination of His Father
At the death of King Philip II, Alexander was automatically enthroned. For many critics, it was a perfect indication that would associate Alexander in the murder of King Philip. There were historical accounts that linked Olympias in the event while other authors of that period contested the reports to be wrong. Olympias was thought to be the main suspect because she was divorced, dethroned and driven out by King Philip II in favor of Cleopatra, whom King Philip II married. Her jealousy of her might be exceedingly immense that his son Alexander would not be the next king of Macedonia.
Either way, two opposing opinions have to be examined carefully because certain incidents really suggested to the possible motives that both Alexander and Pausanias might have against King Philip. N.G.L. Hammond examined the reliability of various historical accounts pertaining to the assassination, namely Satyrus, Plutarch, Justin and Diodorus, in which he claimed the latter to be the author who gave the most reliable facts about the incident.
Accordingly, Hammond extracted the different views of those authors suggesting that Olympias with her son Alexander instigated the crime. Both Justin and Plutarch stated that Olympias was behind the assassination and not Alexander but later agreed that people believed that both of them were instigators of the crime. Justin, according to Sir William Smith, mentioned few related stories that linked to Olympias involvement. He noted that Olympias provided Pausanias with horse that he would use in his escape she placed a crown on Pausanias head when he died and she erected a monument for her. However, both Justin and Plutarch were doubtful because of some statements they used Justin used the expression creditum est and creduntur, while Plutarch was so cautious by using it is said as he narrated the account. Satyrus on the other hand cited Alexander who had the most valid reason to set off the assassination referring to the quarrel between Attalus and Alexander during the wedding-feast of Philip and Cleopatra. However, Satyrus explanation was beyond reality because of the fact that he did not know certain facts such as the ages of Philip, Cleopatra, Olympia and others involved in the story. Lastly, Diodurus historical account was more detailed and realistic proving the extent of actions between each sequence. Certainly, Diodurus explanation was nearer to truth than the other writers thus, leading to Alexanders innocence of the killing of his own father.
Alexander was innocent because he knew he was the heir whom his father groomed with great teachers of that time.
All the authors had mentioned that King Philip II became anxious for his action which he did in favor of Attalus in the courtyard. It was really to the disappointment of Alexander to escape and find refuge in the kingdom of his uncle. King Philip recalled him back instead and had him stayed with him in the palace while Olympias remained in the Apeirus. Alexander stayed with his father and mother-in-law in the palace until the baby was born. Though the relationship between the father and the son became shallow because of distrust and resentments, King Philip II maintained this relationship to perhaps fulfill his vow to Alexander to be the next king of Macedonia. Indeed, Alexander had never thought of becoming involved in the act of assassination because it would only ruin his character and future career. Alexander grew up with full understanding that he would be his fathers successor because it was promised to him. More importantly, Alexander at the age of 14 had been called king and Philip was fully aware of that as it was planned ahead.
Alexanders sudden assertion of his authority as the next king was a realization of his own fathers cream the invasion of Persian Empire.
Duiker and Spielvogel had noted that Alexanders early immediate assertion of his authority as the next king was meant to accomplish his fathers dream which is the invasion of Persian Empire. Indeed, right after the funeral of his father, Alexander delivered a speech stating that he promised to follow the principles of his fathers administration. His invasion of Persia which took place in 334 was a crusade to take vengeance against Xerxes for his assault of Greece. He made it clear when he reminded the troops of his fathers accomplishments by providing the Greek people with immense security from enemies and prosperity of living. All throughout his life, Alexander remained loyal to his father and to the realization of his fathers dream that resulted in the conquest of many nations in Asia by Greece or the most famous Hellenization period in history. He was moulded from childhood of morality and governance by Leonidas, Aristotle, and many other great teachers of that period.
Pausanias courageous assassination of the king was motivated by his vengeance
At first, it seemed impossible for a noble man like Pausanias to commit such action because in the first place he belonged to a distinguished family. He worked as one of King Philips personal bodyguards. He was very close to the king because of his beauty. However, his jealousy of another Pausanias who was Attalus friend put him into trouble with Attalus himself and his men. Neill recalled that out of the young Pausanias jealousy of another Pausanias, he had insulted him with harsh word, for the king was becoming so enamoured of another Pausanian. Attalus learned about this, but he did not retaliate at once until Pausanias, his friend, died in the battle. Attalus then invited the young Pausanias for a dinner and he got him drunk to carry out what he had planned. According to Neill, Attalus handed over the body of the unconscious young officer to the stable grooms to abuse in drunken licentiousness. For Lempriere, what happened was that Pausanias was grossly and unnaturally abused. After realizing what this group of men had done to him, he felt bitterly insulted and sought for justice before King Philip II. But the justice was not bestowed on him instead, Attalus received more honors from people and from the king for winning battles against Persia. Both jealousy and insult had overwhelmed him enough to kill his king.
Many modern historians believed that the motive behind Pausanias assassination of King Philip II was plainly out of his intention to revenge for the insult he received and jealousy of Attalus and the person who provoked him to do such was his master Hermocrates, the sophist. Lempriere noted that Pausanias went to him to seek advice, yet Hermocrates responded very confidently by saying, the most effectual way to render himself illustrious, was to murder a person who had signalized himself by uncommon action.
The possibility that Pausanias was the lone instigator of the crime is high because as stated in the history, same-sex relationship was accepted in the Greek culture. Most notably, it involved one adult male and one young male which could be between a king and one of his official it could be between a teacher and a student. In the story, it is clear that the young Pausanias was a lover of King Philip II. Neill openly recognized this relationship as something intimate he stated, This was not the first time a Macedonian monarch had been assassinated by a male lover. The jealousy went far as the King Philip II showed fondness of the other Pausanias and the fact that his complaint was not addressed seriously by the king. He felt neglected and rejected.
It was Alexanders mother Olympias who had the reasons to instigate the crime
Olympias was no ordinary woman she was the daughter of King Neoptolemus I of Epeirus. Her character of being naturally vehement and passionate was typical among descendants of kings and queens. For this reason, Olympias had the tendency to instigate war and upheaval against her rivals. Justin and Plutarch had recorded similar contentions which involved her. Her infuriating behavior was first manifested when she stimulated her brother to engage in war with King Philip II of Macedonia and at the time provoked the ruse between his son Alexander and his fathers officials in the court after she was divorced by King Philip II and married Cleopatra. Her craving for power did not end in the enthronement of Alexander she continually influenced Alexander in any way possible to control the palace. In the absence of Alexander, Olympias put to death her rival Cleopatra and her infant daughter which according to Plutarch (viii. 7. 7) was an act of cruelty. In addition, her opposition to Antipater, Alexanders successor, led her to incite her cousin Aeacides to make war against Antipater, which did not take place at all. Olympias turned to different people to carry out her plans against her rival but of no success because even her son refused to follow her.
Hence, the rumors of that period that it was Olympias who incited Pausanias to murder King Philip is highly possible. The fact that she knew the conflict between Alexander and Attalus which also involved his father, she would likely knew about Pausanias grievances against King Philip and his new family. Probably it is because Alexander sent her news after his return to the palace. Plutarch, Justin and Athens firmly believed that it was Olympias and not Alexander who instigate the crime. Smith noted, it was even generally believed that she lent her countenance and support to the assassination of the king by Pausanias, B.C. 336 (Plut. Alex. 2, 9, 10 Justin. Ix. 5, 7 xi. 11 Athens xiii. P. 557, c.).
Alexander in spite of his respect for his mother never followed her advices
On the occasions that his mother was influencing him and other prominent people to avenge war against King Philip II and Antipater, Alexander did not allow his mother to participate in the politics. Sir William Smith noticed how King Alexander was so warmly attached to his mother, and yet, he did not allow himself to be blinded to her faults. Alexander gave his mother all the respect and affection intended for a mother. When he was at war, he maintained close connection with his mother through sending her letters. Alexander was such a great warrior and yet faithful and respectful of his mother. However, this remarkable trait of him has limitation for he never allowed her to interfere in political affairs. Thus, Olympias possible involvement in the assassination of King Philip II did not involve his son Alexander in the same way as the assassination of Cleopatra and her daughter by Olympia happened while Alexander was in battles.
Hamilton gave his commentary on account of assassination in the palace in which he agreed based on the occurrences of similar incidents that in the history of Macedonia, assassination had been a traditional method of gaining or safeguarding the throne. However, despite the existing culture of violation in Macedonia, he noted that Alexander does not seem to have indulged in wanton slaughter.
Alexander therefore on the point of view of Hamilton and Smith has no involvement in the assassination of his father, King Philip II.
If Alexander was assassin, he would have done it when his father drew him his sword
The conflict between Alexander and Attalus had started when the latter proclaimed in the wedding feast of his niece and King Philip that the coming kings of Macedonia were to be borne by the newlywed. Attalus stated that the kings would be legitimate sons and not bastard Alexander, out of his annoyance retaliated by throwing something on Attalus. Attalus hit Alexander with his cup. King Philip who was already drunk drew his sword to kill his son but he tipped, fell and collapsed Alexanders response was not violent for he could not harm his father. Instead, he sided his mother and went with his mother in Molossa. Hammond also noticed how Alexander remained calm while staying away from his father. When his father sent a Corinthian man to recall him, he followed and left his mother at Molossa. It seemed that Alexander did not hold any grudge against his father despite what the latter had done to him and to his mother.
The assassination of King Philip was a turning point in the life of Alexander while his connection or involvement in the crime could be assumed as planned by himself considering the worsening relationship of his father and his mother. That particular event in his father life was very complex as it involved politics, personal, cultural, and sex issues because of the involvement of prominent people in the incident. The assassin was Pausanias, while the suspected masterminds were Olympias and Alexander. Pausanias had another agenda different from Olympias and Alexander while King Philip was at the center stage of it all. Thus the likelihood that Olympias and Alexander incited Pausanias to perform the crime was high because only they had the most valid reason to do it. Pausanias may not be able to do it all by himself somebody was behind him. However, based on the evidences presented in this paper, Alexander was innocent. It was his mother who had influenced Pausanias to commit such crime.
He was innocent on the account that he knew he was his fathers successor when he assumed the position as the next king, he focused on achieving what his father had dreamed of Pausanias, the assassin, purposely pursued his plan to revenge and for others vengeance Olympias based on her character and later involvement in the chaos was a proof that she singlehandedly manipulate Pausanias Alexander did not follow her mothers bad advices and Alexander did not inflict harm on his father when the latter drew a sword on him.Indeed, Alexander had no involvement in the assassination. He had no reason to do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment