Further digression: assassinations in Macedon appear to have been comparatively personal matters
Perhaps, but surely this is largely an issue of historiography. Ancient historians tend to be interested in individuals, and particularly in scandalous stories about individuals. Conflate this with the general paucity of information on classical Macedonia in the Greek(/Roman) sources, and it's highly unlikely that much beyond the personal would be recorded. (Though what exactly is 'personal' in a personalised monarchy like Macedonia...?) Bosworth has argued that Philip II's assassination was the outcome of Upper Macedonian displeasure at Philip's recent marriage policy. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, but it's a good attempt to look for a wider 'political' explanation.
Yes, it would seem so. Hammond suggests that the sons of Aeropus, Heromenes and Arrhabaeus 'who took part with (Pausanias) in the killing of Philip' (Arrian) were found guilty at their trial because horses (plural) were waiting for Pausanias, but there must have been other reasons for assuming their guilt which we don't know. Yet if they were attempting a coup, why did they flee? I think my point was that if someone was assasinating the king with the aim of taking over the kingdom, they would surely have a large number of associates ready to quell any resistance, which would have resulted in many more deaths. Thus if anyone were manipulating Pausanias they either wanted to create chaos (Darius) or expected a comparatively smooth transition of power. Either way, they were relying on Pausanias's personal motives to blind him to the fact that he was expendable.
Presumably, though, not only Persia would benefit from causing chaos in the Macedonian monarchy (which was virtually guaranteed due to the fluid 'rules' of Macedonian succession), but also Upper Macedonia if this was indeed the reason behind Philip's assassination. In that case there would be no need to 'take over' the kingdom; the Upper Macedonian hierarchy (or parts of it) was not looking to rule the united Macedonian kingdom but to return to the pre-Philip II time of (semi-)autonomy from the Argead royal house. In that sense, maybe it wasn't so much an attempted coup in the traditional sense. Or maybe they assumed Alexander would take over (Bosworth stresses his appeal to U.M., being half-Epirote). But we will likely never know for sure. The evidence is just too patchy and/or confused and/or covered up to allow a conclusion.
I enjoyed your essay, by the way. :) I just finished a dissertation, so I know how difficult it can be to write these things!
Another thoughtful piece, thank you - I enjoyed reading that, you had some interesting thoughts there. I especially liked your vivid picture of the scene in the king's tent at night! I think you're absolutely right that it must have been older men - the Seven, in fact, if the evidence is correct - who did the actual guarding, while the young pages did the personal services. I think it was Hammond who also pointed out that what they were doing wasn't much different to slaves' work. Doubtless it was meant to be character building, to learn to serve, to become close to the king, known to him, and part of his circle. But you're right - how on earth did they think they could kill him, when others were also on guard?
Yes, I think it was Hammond who compared the Pages' responsibilities to slaves' work. I think there must have been similarities between the Pages and the institution of fags in mid-19th century English public schools. It's a very crude way of enforcing discipline on potentially unruly youngsters, instilling resilience, and bringing out their competitive spirit. Humiliation either breaks juniors, or makes them want to be in that dominant position. How many times have we seen that initiation in military movies
( ... )
Comments 8
Perhaps, but surely this is largely an issue of historiography. Ancient historians tend to be interested in individuals, and particularly in scandalous stories about individuals. Conflate this with the general paucity of information on classical Macedonia in the Greek(/Roman) sources, and it's highly unlikely that much beyond the personal would be recorded. (Though what exactly is 'personal' in a personalised monarchy like Macedonia...?) Bosworth has argued that Philip II's assassination was the outcome of Upper Macedonian displeasure at Philip's recent marriage policy. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, but it's a good attempt to look for a wider 'political' explanation.
Reply
Reply
I enjoyed your essay, by the way. :) I just finished a dissertation, so I know how difficult it can be to write these things!
Reply
This Upper Macedonian theory sounds more interesting the more I think about - I think I'll have to investigate further!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment