(no subject)

[fajrdrako]

Since I can't access the server at work (where I do most of my work), I have been reading more about Philip of Macedon. What a fascinating life! I was wondering why the movie Alexander calls his seventh wife Eurydike when her name in fact was Cleopatra and Eurydike was his mother. I suppose they thought people would confuse her with Caesar's Cleopatra, or with his daughter Cleopatra? Not that she was mentioned.... I am somewhat confused as to whether Philip actually divorced Olympias, or what the implications would be - I suppose by that time, Philip was powerful enough that the diplomatic consequences wouldn't be significant - ? But I'm inclined to doubt it. The various contradictions and confusions should teach me not to read history on websites. (But it won't. I'm having a whale of a time.) If Philip wanted a marriage between his daughter Cleopatra and Olympias' brother, does that mean it was okay for a girl to marry her uncle? Cleopatra was Alexander's full sister, wasn't she?

And what's this about Pausanias - the man who killed Philip - being Philip's lover? Probably apocryphal, but I like the implication that generalized bisexuality was normal enough for gossip about it. Cool. Now, the movie seems to imply that Alexander suspected Olympias of being behind the murder of Philip, but I keep coming across hints that Alexander and Olympias were in it together.

When it comes to murder in Alexander's time, I'm finding Doherty's mystery novel The Gates of Hell a bit of a disappointment so far. Interesting characters, interesting setting, but... it annoys me that the narrative viewpoint has changed three or four times in the opening chapters. I was all set for a novel with Mithra of Persia as the detective protagonist on the strength of the first few pages - wonderfully theatrical stuff; but that seems to have led nowhere.

I'm also trying to figure out the nature and implications of the Macedonian/Greek differences. Political? Cultural? Geographic? Historical? Linguistic? A bit of all of the above? Note to self: ask my Greek and Macedonian friends about this. In a tactful manner. Some online sources seem to think Philip's Macedonian nationalism is applicable to the present day. Well, why not? Good old conflicts never die.

I am impressed with the extent of warfare of the time. No wonder Alexander was moved to take over the world. Everyone was fighting everyone; Macedon might well have ceased to exist if Philip hadn't been an effective strategist and aggressive warrior; fighting more and better must have been a major factor of their lives. I am also impressed by the splendour of the palace at Pella. The movie didn't exaggerate there.

Back to look for more interesting sources.... and to read the ones I have. A few websites I liked:

• Philip of Macedon - perhaps biased, and the English is poor, but the history is clearly explained


• The Wikipedia entry on Philip II of Macedon - I always like Wikipedia entries, with their multiple links. But the most intriguing link for a more complete biography is down.


• Philip and Pausanias was delightfully lurid in a tabloidish way. I like it when ancient scandals live on


• Ancient sources: Justin

Time for lunch now.

Comments

[destina.livejournal.com]

*whispers* Did you post your story, and did I somehow miss it? I've been waiting to rec it, but haven't seen it yet.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Nope... first, I was waiting for the other betas to get back to me, then I got overwhelmed and distracted by Christmas busy-ness. Maybe I'll post it tonight. Sounds like a plan!

Lovely icon you have.

[3scoremiles-10.livejournal.com]

Just dropped by to say YAY! Someone else is noticing how remarkable Philip of Macedon actually is! He tends to get overshadowed by Alexander to the degree where people hardly notice him, but his own life story is a showstopper. Hostage in Thebes, then Regent to a kingdom going down for the third time, which he proceeds to restructure and rebuild from the ground up, gets himself announced King, plays politics like a man born to it and strategises circles around his opponents, ends up Hegemon of most of Hellas and then gets stabbed to death by his own ex-lover before he can quite kick off the whole Persian campaign that he's been preparing for for the last several years. People think Alexander did it on his own, but he had quite a bit of help from daddy in getting it off the ground.

As for Pausanias ... that's an old scandal. Quite sordid, though whether it's the whole reason for what Pausanias did I doubt very much. Also, yes, male/male relations were ordinary and acceptable and likely the source of a lot of good barrack house gossip - and Philip was gossiped about much futher afield than that. There has been no end of supposition regarding who was actually involved in the conspiracy to kill Philip (working on the belief that Pausanias was not the Lone Gunman) and some people have tossed Olympias' name in the ring, and even Alexander's though there is no proof either way. Personally I think it unlikely that Alexander had anything to do with it, but I'll stop hijacking your journal now and go away. I was just pleased to see someone noticing Philip for a change. ;)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

He tends to get overshadowed by Alexander to the degree where people hardly notice him

Just about all the reading I have previously done was to the effect that "Alexander was the son of Philip of Macedon, whose achievements were remarkable" and then they go on without further remarks.... Makes me curious about Philip, who is some ways I find even more impressive than Alexander - since he started his career from such a comparatively low point, a position on the defensive, and only the allies he made himself.

that's an old scandal

I love old scandals!

though whether it's the whole reason for what Pausanias did I doubt very much

There would have to be multiple motives, I should think - especially given the very public nature of the actual killing. Poltical, personal, whatever. Interesting to speculate - I am suddenly tempted to write a novel about all this.

I'll stop hijacking your journal now and go away

No, no! Come back! I'm dying to find people I can talk to about these things.

I was just pleased to see someone noticing Philip

Oh, I've noticed him, all right. Can you suggest any books good with information about him?

[3scoremiles-10.livejournal.com]

You know, I should be able to give you a few books to go look at, but right now I'm nowhere near my booklist and memory is not helping. An excellent place to ask though, would be the community megalexandros. A great resource, I'm sure someone there will be able to point you towards some good readings. Or you could wait for me to become organised enough to find where that booklist went ... and if you knew me, you'd opt for the other. Trust me. ;)

Have to say as well, arysteia is likely right about broaching "The Macedonian Question". It's a touchy subject, things can get heated. Antiquity is safer.

I agree with your observation on Philip being in some ways more impressive because he started with so little to work with. Which takes nothing at all away from Alexander, who achieved on levels most of us can barely imagine. Both of them are quite remarkable men ... and of course, Alexander had to inherit it from somewhere, didn't he? I've heard it said that for Alexander's sake, perhaps it was as well that Philip died when he did or he would have left his son with not so much to do - interesting to speculate how true that is. Personally I doubt Philip would have done what Alexander did - I don't think he'd have gone nearly so far before calling it quits - but he certainly knew a thing or two about getting what he wanted.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'll ask on megalexandros.

Antiquity is safer.

Good point. One of my Macedonian friends tells me that her family moved away from the Balkans so they could get away from the fighting and all the people in the local Macedonian community here in Canada just goes on fighting the same arguments over here. She thinks they're all nuts and won't have anything to do with it.

I don't need to get embroiled - life is complicated enough!

Alexander had to inherit it from somewhere, didn't he?

Yes, and he grew up with quite an example - observing his father's methods would be an education in itself.

I've heard it said that for Alexander's sake, perhaps it was as well that Philip died when he did or he would have left his son with not so much to do - interesting to speculate how true that is.

I always think it is pointless to ask "what would have happened if" questions unless one is writing fiction - which is of course an activity I heartily approve of. I think that whatever Philip achieved, there would have been new worlds for Alexander to conquer; and I suspect Philip, with a background of protecting Macedon against the odds, might not have wanted to stray so far and stay away for so long.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

"Eurydike" was a royal honorific - people often use if for precisely the reasons you outlined (MR says so explicitly in her introduction), but it was actually granted to her as a mark of honour. One more sign she was a wife to worry about, and not another fling.

It was certainly fine for Cleopatra to marry her uncle - she did so and they had one son, I believe. He died fighting in Italy, and she came out to Babylon with the idea of marrying Perdikkas.

The Pausanias=lover story is certainly not apocryphal, though it likely wasn't the sole reason for the assassination. I suspect those with political motives took advantage of someone with a personal grudge. The scandal, however, was very real. One of the (flimsy) pieces of evidence for Alexander being involved is that he supposedly quoted Medea to Pausanias - "the bride, the groom and the bride-giver" - then Pausanias killed Philip, Olympias killed Eurydike, and Alexander killed Attalos.

As for asking about the Greek/Macedonian question, I recommend you avoid it. Fisticuffs broke out at my cousin's christening last week when someone did the same. Suffice it to say that while it may seem hypocritical given the way southern Greeks claimed Macedonians *weren't* Greek, nowadays a massive amount of Greek national pride is involved in the fact that they are. The situation has been more fraught since the independence of FYROM (the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia), known as Skopje in Greece after the capital.

The story goes (and I don't vouch for it, not having done independent research) that when Tito put Yugoslavia back together after WWII, he had designs on Northern Greece. The Greek Communists, who'd been in the Partisans with him during the war, cooperated, since they were losing the Civil War in Greece. In a cunning masterstroke, he renamed the bit of Yugoslavia contiguous with Northern Greece "Macedonia". The idea being that when we in the west heard that "Macedonia" had invaded "Macedonia" we'd figure it was a civil war (*another* one) and not interfere. The invasion never happened, but the name stuck. And now of course, several generations who've grown up under the name want to keep it. It doesn't help that part of Tito's propaganda was to whip the locals up about Alexander and "their" glorious history.

The Greeks, of course, responded by blocking FYROM from the EU unless they changed their name. To be fair, there *has* been some provocation. It's one thing to put the Vergina sun on coins, but FYROM went far too far when it put the White Tower of Thessaloniki, which is *in* Thessaloniki, on one of its banknotes. Everyone ran around saying the invasion was coming at last.

I'm not sure where the border would have been, and if any of FYROM is *geographically* where ancient Macedonia would have been. Linguistically, though, the language they call "Macedonian" is definitely Slavic, and not Greek.

[3scoremiles-10.livejournal.com]

One of the (flimsy) pieces of evidence for Alexander being involved is that he supposedly quoted Medea to Pausanias - "the bride, the groom and the bride-giver" - then Pausanias killed Philip, Olympias killed Eurydike, and Alexander killed Attalos.

As you say, flimsy evidence ... for one thing, Attalos' death at that point had become politically necessary, and hardly indicative of any involvement in conspiracy to kill Philip. Attalos was no friend to Alexander, and he was a powerful man who at the time had command of a force of men who were used to taking his orders. He could not have been let to live while Alexander was trying to secure his throne, conspiracy or not. Killing Eurydike was a step too far perhaps, but the purging of rival claimants to the throne is pretty standard stuff, even if the rival is a baby still in its crib. I can't see that disposing of Attalos makes Alexander guilty of anything but good judgement, however ... even if he was spouting Medea before he did it. As evidence goes, as you say, it's weak. Still, a good scandal dies hard, right? ;)

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't think for a second it's true. Maybe I should have said "spurious" rather than flimsy. The quote was supposedly right after the whole affair, which means Alexander was all of twelve/thirteen when he was meant to have said it!

Nothing like slander to sell a story. :-D

[3scoremiles-10.livejournal.com]

Hehehehe ... ah yes, a very precocious 12 year old, wasn't he? ;)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I should think so! A person doesn't just acquire extraordinary intelligence suddenly after adolescence.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Flimsy and spurious. Do you think Alexander woudln't have quoted Medea at thirteen? Why not? He was bright, and educated.

Slander and sensationalism makes good press, then as now.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

Oh, he could have quoted it all right, my brilliant boy! But I don't think he had in mind to carry out Medea's revenge... Not least because Eurydike and Attalos weren't on the scene for another five years. I think Plutarch had his dates mixed up.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oh, he could have quoted it all right, my brilliant boy!

I think so.

I think Plutarch had his dates mixed up.

And quite possibly had the whole story in confused form. It's intriguing, though.

[3scoremiles-10.livejournal.com]

I'll chime in here to agree that at 12, Alexander could well have been spouting off bits of Medea and other related tragedies, but no matter how precocious or intelligent, he'd have been doing well to plan a conspiracy involving people who had not yet arrived on the scene. He's smart, but he's not prescient ... and Plutarch, bless him, does tend to muddle things sometimes.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I am happy to absolve Alexander of conspiracy to murder. But I like the notion of his quoting Medea.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think they had more than enough scandals to go around - but what's one more?

The thing is, if Pausanias did not act alone in killing Philip, it remains an open question of who was behind him. Of course we look at Alexander, the shining beacon of his age - any mystery writer would do so. Cui bono? If we were the homicide inspector on the spot, we'd be remiss not to question the son or the estranged wife of the victim, even just to prove their innocence by examining the evidence. And Alexander's comments - or his taste in quotes - are part of that.

Luckily, the evidence (at least from our perspective) is flimsy enough to exculpate him. And even I have read enough now to realize that many people had potential motives.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

"Eurydike" was a royal honorific - people often use if for precisely the reasons you outlined

Ah - thank you for the clarification. Makes perfect sense, once you know.

He died fighting in Italy

Which, the husband or the son? I can see I'm going to have to draw out a few geneaolgies to get this all straight....

The Pausanias=lover story is certainly not apocryphal

I am delighted. I am always hesitant to believe the really good stories - but they do seem to be true as often as not.

One of the (flimsy) pieces of evidence for Alexander being involved is that he supposedly quoted Medea to Pausanias

It makes a wonderful story. I love it when people quote things.

Fisticuffs broke out at my cousin's christening last week when someone did the same.

Oh not! I don't want to start any fights. Thank you for the brief rundown; so some Macedonians are Greek-speaking and some aren't? How confusing for the rest of us. And for them. So history rolls on everyone finds new ways of revisiting and complicating the old unresolved issues. I can see why everyone would like to claim Alexander in their history.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

Which, the husband or the son?

The husband. The son went on to inherit the Epirote throne after his mother left for the east. I'm not sure what happened to him, but I assume it was his dynasty that provided the Alexanders and Pyrrhuses that proved a thorn in the side to Rome.

so some Macedonians are Greek-speaking and some aren't?

Well... We have "Macedonia" (Skopje/FYROM) where they speak "Macedonian" - actually Slavic. And Macedonia (northernmost province of Greece) where they speak Greek. My modern Greek isn't good enough to be able to tell if it's different at all from Greek in the south, but I don't think it really is. Any more than regional variation usually accounts for, anyway. Old school Macedonian, which I referred to yesterday, as in Doric Greek, doesn't exist any more.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I assume it was his dynasty that provided the Alexanders and Pyrrhuses that proved a thorn in the side to Rome.

Most like. Excellent! I know next to nothing of the history of Epirus - I barely know enough to point to it on a map.

Macedonian... right: the Slavic variety from Skopje, the Greek variety in Thessaloniki and thereabouts, and the ancient kind that Philip and Alexander would have spoken.... All Indo-European, I assume, and all reflecting pride in a thread of history tied to the name.