Historical Question: Philip II of Macedon's Eye?

I recently was looking for info on the loss of Philip of Macedon's eye. You know, the one that makes him look a bit screwed up. One source I have in print says it was a slinger's bullet from the siege of Methone (p. 160, V.D. Hanson's "Wars of the Ancient Greeks." All of the online stuff I've found says it was due to an archer at Methone (not that I found very much online about it.) Can anyone point me to a definitive, reliable, contemporary source? The online stuff all refers to a study to determine if a certain tomb contained his body, or another (it was a later relative named Philip.) They all say it was an archer. So who is correct? I find it hard to imagine that serious researchers would have made such a fundemental error in their assumptions...and then publish anyway. That would be criminally sloppy. On the other hand, there is some sloppy wording in part's of Hanson's book as well (and other aspects of his objectivity that concern me), so I don't feel like I'm on firm ground with either.

My interest was that one of the Roman commanders, Paullus, was temporarily incapacitated at Cannae by a slinger's bullet (and later killed in melee), so if Philip of Macedon was maimed by a slinger or archer it would have some bearing on the relative effect of each weapon at the time.

From looking at a bust of Philip II, and not knowing the source of the injury, I would guess it as being a "blunt force trauma" rather than an arrow puncture. Several times I've seen what a man's hand can do to the cheek and orbital of another man's face/eye, and there are striking similarities. I really wouldn't know what to expect of a period arrow though...so I lack a solid basis to form an opinion.

Check out Diodorus Siculus (16.34.1)
According to either of the two translations I have looked at, Phillip is described as being shot with a arrow.

When Philip was campaigning in Greece, his eye was hit by an arrow in some siege (forget which one). Either way, that's how he lost his eye.

I think they found his skull and reamde his face... It seemed rather more obvious that it was an arrow. What I can remember is that the eyebrow is chipped, hardly the ability of a slingbullet. Also I believe that a slingbullet to the eye would be fatal (due to the skull being the thinnest behind the eye), or simply crush the entire region so that the man would forever look like elephantman. And Phillip while quite ugly didn't seem overly ruined in the reconstruction (in fact not so far from Val Kilmer in Alexander).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I think they found his skull and reamde his face... It seemed rather more obvious that it was an arrow. What I can remember is that the eyebrow is chipped, hardly the ability of a slingbullet. Also I believe that a slingbullet to the eye would be fatal (due to the skull being the thinnest behind the eye), or simply crush the entire region so that the man would forever look like elephantman. And Phillip while quite ugly didn't seem overly ruined in the reconstruction (in fact not so far from Val Kilmer in Alexander).

---

If that is the same one that the web links refer to it was a later Philip. Wrong Philip of Macedon They now suppose that the skeleton is Philip III Arrhidaeus. Note that the supposed wound showed no sign of healing or calcification. They now believe that normal anatomical variation along with the cremation process gave the bones the appearance of an arrow wound.

I agree that if hit square in the eye with such force it probably would have killed him. From what little I've seen, it looks more like the hit would have been on the upper cheek, crushing it and destroying the orbital--and definitely costing an eye in those days (and probably even today.) This "crumple zone" would absorb the impact and probably prevent severe brain injury. It could also have smashed the cheek from the side.

I checked the translation of Diodorus Siculus on Perseus and it says "arrow." But it gives little background. Since he was writing several hundred years after the fact, I'm not sure that I would consider this a primary reference for the event. I wonder if there are others? At this point it looks like a coin flip.

Red

Diodorus is not period but his very likely following (and compressing) either Theopompus of Chios or more likely Ephorus, who were period historians. Diodorus has his share of faults, but I really can’t see any reason he would not report accurately what his period reference recorded on this incident. Sling stone or arrow, what’s the difference, if he was going to note the weapon, I can’t imagine why he would alter it.

I don't recall any references in the various speeches of Demosthenes, or Dinarcus or the other 4th century Athenian orators, but you might try a text search over at Perseus (after all Phillip was a big issue in many of the surviving speeches from Athens). You might turn up something in say Demosthenes “... O men of Athens if only the arrow of Methone had been true, I would not need to speek once again over your objections, on the menace of the northern tyrant...”

Philip III Arrhidaeus, he was that poor brother of Alexander, right? Who was mentally incapictated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Sling stone or arrow, what’s the difference, if he was going to note the weapon, I can’t imagine why he would alter it.

---

Perhaps the source he used for his writings didn't mention what weapon it was that was used but only said that he was shot in the eye. Given that it was written centuries later when slings were seldomly used he would naturally have made a simple misktake and claimed it was an arrow (what else could it have been?).

But your source is good though...

Red, that might be it, but they were able to reconstruct the entire face... I saw it quite a few years ago, long before I had considered it might be important to remember. So no info on that I'm afraid.

Also, I think that the cheekbone is thin enough to get entirely crushed. That alone would cause a major infection I believe. A broken rib or broken bone (which would be normal) could be fixed, but the only way to 'fix' crushed bones was to amputate... And you can't really amputate the entire cheek (at least that would have been mentioned I think).

The last argument would be that the greekified (I just invented a word ~D) world didn't use slingers all that much. The Thracians did use them during sieges, but not much in all... So it seems quite more likely that it was arrow if we purely look at it from a chance perspective.