Most legitimate diadochi?

I´ve been wondering for some time, which of the diadochi (the sucessors of megas alexandros) nations could be more "legitimate" heirs of Alexander. I know there is probably not a single answer, but who do you think deserves more to claim that title?

I personally think that the Arche Seleukeia are the most close to the idea that Alexander had for this empire. While there was a elite macedonian class, they also mixed a lot with the native persians and developed the idea of the greek-persian culture, adopting many local customs. In many ways fullfilling the wishes of Alexander.

Who diadochi do you think was more worthy of reuniting Alexander´s empire? There were any diadochi which supported the heir of Alexandros (iirc it was Perdicas) and were no involved in the assasinations?

I know, a very heated topic. Let´s hope it can be discussed without much problems. I just want to know which diadochi would have Alexander supported, if he were alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bucefalo

?

I just want to know which diadochi would have Alexander supported, if he were alive.

---

The Strongest

Difficult question. Alexandros IV and Philipos Arrhidaios were true heirs. I am not fan of Kasandros, because he was behind their murder. Ptolemy was not interested in reuniting the emipre, he understood that it is impossible and wanted to reign only in Egypt. Perhaps Seleukos had the best starting position and was able to do that. But my favourite successor dynasty are Antigonids and Antigonos was on a good way to control large part of emire, but he stood against very powerful aliance.

Quote:

---

The Strongest

---

AKA you will fight to be the strongest but the only result will be that you will destroy each other and I will remain the one and only Megas (it is a funny idea of Alexandros saying it with this on mind)

Well this is really an interresting question and as you said there is no single answer.

I think Alexander didn't wish his empire to be torn apart like it had been. The point when he married about 1000 of his soldiers and nobles to persian maidens and took a persian wife himself (I quess one of the daughters of Darius III although I'm not sure about that right now) seems to suggest this.

Also his last words are a matter of debate. It has been quoted alot that when asked who should inherit his throne Alexandros said "toi kratisto" - "to the strongest", however it was rumoured that he actually said "Craterus" the name of one of his friends and infatry commanders, but the generals around him simply refused to hear that answer and rather took out the meaning of the strongest so that one of them should be seen as "the successor".

Now back to the question: I agree that the Seleukids possibly came closest to what Alexander had imagined his empire to be like in the future. From that point of view I would consider them the true successors of the great conquerer even though they failed in the conflict against Rome. There rulers were Heterogenes and descended from Seleucus and his wife of persian descent (and stayed with her for the rest of his time while most other Makedones left there "Susa wifes" later on). I find it truly amazing what he had achieved during his life: from an officer to general to King of the east and almost King of Makedonia also if he had not been killed ....

The possibly next in line would have been Ptolemy and his heirs. Although I personally dislike them to some extent for several reasons it must be admitted that they were one of the most succesfull diadochi for a long time. That Ptolemy stole the body of Alexandros leads back to a Makedonian traditon: the new King had to give the passed one a decent burial and legitimize his own rule with it. The rumors of Ptolemy being an illigemate son of Philippos II (Alexanders Father) could even give him some right to the throne:egypt: The biggest problem I find in them is that Ptolemy and his heirs never tried to reunite the empire of Alexandros but stayed with ruling only Aigyptos. This solid objective and the fact that they stayed out of the Diadochi wars gave them a secure position of rule. The adoption of old egyptian customs decreases there claim however. So does the way they ruled: they considered the Egyptians lower peoples and relied on nobles an soldiers of Makedonian, Hellenic, Galatian and other nationalities to "keep the native peoples in check" - this stands in the opposite of what Alexandros had intended.

Of the other Diadochi I would not speak at the moment. I find the two above to be the most legitimate heirs (by deed, power and position) to the Empire of Megas Alexandros.

(I really wonder what Maion would have said on this matter.....:idea2:)

Lysimachos. It's a shame he died so early :<

I actually wonder about this every once in a while, and I've gotten to thinking: what exactly did Alexandros say on his deathbed (in greek)? is "to the strongest" really what he meant?

Antigonos, he was the original :-p Plus you have to be pretty awesome to be a 81 year old man with one eye charging into battle without any armor.

Pyrrhus, he was a cousin of Alexander and prooved to be a great general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I actually wonder about this every once in a while, and I've gotten to thinking: what exactly did Alexandros say on his deathbed (in greek)? is "to the strongest" really what he meant?

---

Like I said it is very debated, I think if he was poisoned by some of his leading men then the poisoner(s) would have tried to influence what was said of alexnadros and his last words. The "Miss-hearing of Craterus" is also a possibility. Some of his Generals clearly wanted a piece of the empire for themself - would denying or changing the last words of there dying ruler been too much for them or not?

Also over 2000 years later it is almost impossible to say what really happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Pyrrhus, he was a cousin of Alexander and prooved to be a great general.

---

He might have claimed that Alexandros talked to him in his dreams, but while his famous ancestor simply could not stop conquering, Pyrrhus often simply interrupted his campaings without really finishing them. I don't mean his campaing against Rome - he was simply outmaned but still managed to gain many victories (more than anyone had expected) at high costs.

He was no doubt very popular among the Hellenes - during his first invasion of Makedonia the soldiers simply went over on his side. But after the galatians (whom he had entruested to guard) had sacked some of the royal tombs his popularity dropped alot. No wonder they didn't welcome him with open arms later on.

Also his war on the Peleponesos proved fathel for him and his son. I don't question that he was a great general, but he simply didn't quite fit into the picture of a new Alexander in some aspects.

His death was truly tragical - one not meant for a great general like him....

Thanks all for the answers, it is a very interesting subject indeed.

I also agree that we could never be sure of what Alexander really said, it is something that history will always hide from us, as it was probably a very closely guarded secret from the very day that Alexander died. But althought we may never know what Alexander really said, we can do a wild guess about which of the diadochi more closely followed the steps that alexander started. In that case it is the Seleukids as HunGeneral has very well pointed.

But what about the rest? I mean, many of Alexander´s soldiers and generals were unhappy about how him treated the persians (the vanquished) and how he married persian women. What side do you think that those "conservative" men would have taken in the diadochi wars? I mean, we know that the Seleukids followed a similar model to what Alexander would have liked. But what about his soldiers and generals who also conquered an empire (Alexander didn´t do it alone you know), how would be their prefered empire, maybe something like the Ptolemy, with a ruling elite greek class and not mixing much with the natives?:egypt:

Makedonia is by far the most legitimate Diadochos. The reason is that Antigonos Monophtalmos was the last one to claim the whole of the empire but lost this claim at Ipsos, Demetrios Poliorketes his son going into captivity of Seleukos... All the other Diadochoi at this stage wanted to keep their personal kingdom and stood against a unification under Antigonos.

Ptolemy was the last living brother of Alexander, that means he had the only "legitimate" claim.

Still, Alexander killed his cousins and uncles, it's rumoured he would have killed his brother Philip had it not been for his illness. The sorry state of his Kingdom after his death was his own stupid fault.

Yup, plus he was manipulated by his Generals still in life. I think it was rather self-evident that they would get the booty by then.

Alexander.

I would argue that there WERE no legitimate heirs to Alexander's empire. Alexander was a truly unique personality, with enough tactical skill to continuously defeat larger armies, enough foresight to integrate his Persian conquests as much as possible, and enough charisma to convince his soldiers to follow him thousands of miles from their homes into hostile lands. Perhaps if he had lived onger he might have found some way to make a peaceful transition, but as soon as Alexander died his empire died with him, as none of his generals came even close to having the same persona as he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TKaz84

I would argue that there WERE no legitimate heirs to Alexander's empire.

---

I'd second that.

Alexander took the tiny (but powerful) nation of Makedonia and conquered hundreds of other independent nations in less than a couple of years. When Alexander hastly passed away, leaving no heir of mature age to establish a dynasty, the status of the conquered nations would be "nullified" and "terra nova" - available for everyone strong enough to conquer them again.

To summarize, Makedonia (and it's ruler) is the legitimate successor of the pre-Alexander makedonian kingdom, and the Empire of Alexander pretty much ceased to exist.

As far as i'm concerned, Perdiccas was fighting for the rights of Alexander's son until he was defeated by Seleucus. Antigonos Monoftalmos, in turn, was firghting to preserve the unity of Alexander's monarchy.

Their actions might have been the closest to "legitimate", but they were completely unrealistic - the most sensible thing to do was the action of Ptolemy, who declared himself king as the first of the diadochii. He knew that fighting for the Argead dynasty or trying to preserve the unity of the empire was a lost cause.

Ah, here begins the Alexander worship. Philip II created the most powerful military and political machine the Greek states had ever known. It included the Cities, the Highlands, and the greater part of Thrace.

What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.

His conquests were the ultimate Gap Year gone wrong. Take a look at the map, after he kills Parmenion at Babylon it all goes to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ah, here begins the Alexander worship. Philip II created the most powerful military and political machine the Greek states had ever known. It included the Cities, the Highlands, and the greater part of Thrace.

What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.

His conquests were the ultimate Gap Year gone wrong. Take a look at the map, after he kills Parmenion at Babylon it all goes to hell.

---

I agree with you, I also hold Phillip in a higher view then Alexander. I would rather fight with him then with Alexander. :whip:

Ouch, that's a harsh statement!

I mostly agree with Calicvla though i think it belittles Alexander's achievements somewhat. Personally i think Philip was the better man, ruler and general.

Would have been interesting to see in which way old Philip would have taken on the Persian Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

I agree with you, I also hold Phillip in a higher view then Alexander. I would rather fight with him then with Alexander. :whip:

---

Less likely to get you killed, isn't he?

I'm sure you Alexandro bashers should take a good look at one of Kevranos' links on his sig.... =/

Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.

Also, I believe Parmenion died in Ekbatana, not Babylon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.

Also, I believe Parmenion died in Ekbatana, not Babylon.

---

He was murdered while governing Media, the point is that the evidence against him was non-existant and that against his son so flimsy as to be nearly irrelevant.

Philip Conquered Greece, Alexander Persia. Of the two Greece was the more complex, Persia merely the larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.

---

Sadly that won't be possible because none of us inherited the best army in the world from our father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penguinking

Sadly that won't be possible because none of us inherited the best army in the world from our father.

---

whoa there :)
Yes, Alexander inherited from his father a perfected army and a revolutionary war doctrine ... however from day 1 of his reign he faced challenges both internal and external ...

1. He secured his position by relentlessly executing all his potential political rivals that could question / threaten his rule (princes, heirs , generals)- by our time's measures a harsh decision but a political necessity nevertheless-such was the man's sense of realism and his decisiveness...

2.He faced the revolt of Athens, Thebe (those cities rebelling not once but twice) Thrace,Thessaly and Illyria... to these simultaneous threats he responded with a fervent blitzkrieg that paralyzed his opponents ... crushing them he established his hegemony through examples of cruelty and magnanimity, intimidation and respect... (he razed Thebes but spared Athens )...

so you see nothing was "handed down" to Alexander ... he secured his throne by rights of war and ruthless action that demanded abilities, perception and drive beyond that of most people... :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

whoa there :)
Yes, Alexander inherited from his father a perfected army and a revolutionary war doctrine ... however from day 1 of his reign he faced challenges both internal and external ...

1. He secured his position by relentlessly executing all his potential political rivals that could question / threaten his rule (princes, heirs , generals)- by our time's measures a harsh decision but a political necessity nevertheless-such was the man's sense of realism and his decisiveness...

2.He faced the revolt of Athens, Thebe (those cities rebelling not once but twice) Thrace,Thessaly and Illyria... to these simultaneous threats he responded with a fervent blitzkrieg that paralyzed his opponents ... crushing them he established his hegemony through examples of cruelty and magnanimity, intimidation and respect... (he razed Thebes but spared Athens )...

so you see nothing was "handed down" to Alexander ... he secured his throne by rights of war and ruthless action that demanded abilities, perception and drive beyond that of most people... :yes:

---

Except that he had Attalus and Parmenion in Asia and Antipatar in Greece. Alexander's murder of his brother and cousin were unnessecary, Philip had spared the latter, and his innitial brutality earned him enemies in the Southern Cities until his death. Philip's Hegemony was established through cunning, and without destruction, by his death he had made Macedonia at least moderately acceptable.

Given that either Olympias or Alexander had Philip killed the whole sorry mess comes down on the shoulders of those two to begin with. Alexander probably caused the crisis, that he then used it to demonstrate his brutality and ruthlessness does not make him worthy of respect.

It comes down to this, I would serve Philip but not Alexander because the latter would either get me killed or have me killed if I survived his recklessness.

You must kill all your brothers since these are potential usurpers. I think you judge Alexander a bit too much by modern standards. Razing Thebes to the ground was also quite the measure of choice since it had rebelled, and there could never be any forgiveness against rebels, that was the moralty of the time. And what's bad about earning oneself enemies?

Also I question that Philip II. was less brutal than Alexander. Olympias did right in killing him, since he had a pregnant new wife Eurydike and questioned Alexander's position as heir to the throne, resulting in the father-in-law already doing the same. Alexander + Olympias = the winning team.

Pyrrhos was the only one who had any blood relationship with Alexandros. He was his cousin on his mother side. This was the reason he was made King of Makedonia (twice) and also why his father lost his throne in the first place. Kassandros had him killed as he was trying to reinforce Alexandros' mother and son, who were in dire need of assistance.

Pyrrhos was sent to Illyria in order to survive.

Getting yourself murdered for family ties was so common among all Diadochoi that I would probably serve none. Rather I would either side with the Achaean League or the Romaioi, if I was solely looking for less outright treachery of course.

Quote:

---

Well, unless one of you Alexander-bashers can eradicate the USA from the map in less than ten years, I won't trust your convictions very much.

---

That comparison is actually fallacious. No matter if I had an army that outnumbered the US Army tenfold and was better trained at every level I would never manage to conquer them successfully. I would rather get nuked to death together with the entire planet and cause the extinction of the human race before.

If Alexander lived today, he would rather be a joyous and virile young man practicing sports, and maybe if he had any historical interest playing EB, but he would never ever attain the glory of an ancient Alexander. The circumstances can have a larger effect on the man than whatever attitudes he take.

A better analogy then fighting the USA today would be Germany fighting Russia in WWI. Germany was a (relatively) newly unified country that fought the largest contiguous empire in the world. Before WWI, everyone thought that the might Russia Empire was unstoppable, but just like Persia in Alexander's time it was not the giant it was thought to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

whoa there :)
Yes, Alexander inherited from his father a perfected army and a revolutionary war doctrine ... however from day 1 of his reign he faced challenges both internal and external ...

1. He secured his position by relentlessly executing all his potential political rivals that could question / threaten his rule (princes, heirs , generals)- by our time's measures a harsh decision but a political necessity nevertheless-such was the man's sense of realism and his decisiveness...

2.He faced the revolt of Athens, Thebe (those cities rebelling not once but twice) Thrace,Thessaly and Illyria... to these simultaneous threats he responded with a fervent blitzkrieg that paralyzed his opponents ... crushing them he established his hegemony through examples of cruelty and magnanimity, intimidation and respect... (he razed Thebes but spared Athens )...

so you see nothing was "handed down" to Alexander ... he secured his throne by rights of war and ruthless action that demanded abilities, perception and drive beyond that of most people... :yes:

---

When Philip ascended the throne he faced the same problems or maybe worse and he created a powerfull army and state. Alexander's start was a lot easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Also I question that Philip II. was less brutal than Alexander.

---

Facts??

What cities did Philip burn down or exterminate?? Kill friends in drunken madness or hunt down non-existing conspiracies??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

He was murdered while governing Media, the point is that the evidence against him was non-existant and that against his son so flimsy as to be nearly irrelevant.

Philip Conquered Greece, Alexander Persia. Of the two Greece was the more complex, Persia merely the larger.

---

That's one large merely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

You must kill all your brothers since these are potential usurpers. I think you judge Alexander a bit too much by modern standards. Razing Thebes to the ground was also quite the measure of choice since it had rebelled, and there could never be any forgiveness against rebels, that was the moralty of the time. And what's bad about earning oneself enemies?

Also I question that Philip II. was less brutal than Alexander. Olympias did right in killing him, since he had a pregnant new wife Eurydike and questioned Alexander's position as heir to the throne, resulting in the father-in-law already doing the same. Alexander + Olympias = the winning team.

---

Philip didn't, neither did either of his brothers. Also, Alexander did not kill his brother, only those members of his family his father had already spared. Further, Philip only killed those who challenged him. Alexander mudered pretty much everyone who wasn't dissabled.

So, it's unlikely he would have had Alexander killed in favour of his baby son, though given Alexander's obvious emotional instability he was not the best choice as King.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite

Facts??
What cities did Philip burn down or exterminate?? Kill friends in drunken madness or hunt down non-existing conspiracies??

---

hmmmmmmm, ok let's see things from a different perspective :)

When Alexander died in 323 BC he was 32 years old... he was by then the undisputed ruler of Makedonia, Asia Minor, Syria,Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, Persia,Baktria and extensive Indian territories beyond those of the mighty Achaemenid empire ... the kingdoms of Illyria,Thrace and the numerous old city states of Greece (save Lacedaemona) subordinated to Makedonia and recognizing Alexander as their "Hegemon"...

All these Alexander had achieved in the last 13 years of his life ... naturally conquests and political exploits of such dimension are linked with quite a lot of bloodshed... however if you study each and every one of those disputed atrocities in their true dimensions and the time's context you'll find that they were (almost) all politically necessary ...

1.They accuse Alexander of plotting the assassination of his father Philip ... the evidences of such a conspiracy are of course circumstancial and not definite (as usually happens in such cases) ... wether Olympias organised the killing (with or without Alexander's knowledge or approval ) or in fact the Persians acted so to eliminate the charismatic ruler of Makedonia (prior to launching a military campaign against Asia) remains a mystery ... the fact remains that Alexander greatly profitted from Philip's death ... his father questioning with his actions and words the very legitimacy of Alexander's royal dessent...
Elaborate on the below extract from Plutarch:

"At the wedding of Cleopatra, whom Philip fell in love with and married, she being much too young for him, her uncle Attalus in his drink desired the Macedonians would implore the gods to give them a lawful successor to the kingdom by his niece. This so irritated Alexander, that throwing one of the cups at his head, "You villain," said he, "what, am I then a bastard?" Then Philip, taking Attalus's part, rose up and would have run his son through; but by good fortune for them both, either his over-hasty rage, or the wine he had drunk, made his foot slip, so that he fell down on the floor. At which Alexander reproachfully insulted over him: "See there," said he, "the man who makes preparations to pass out of Europe into Asia, overturned in passing from one seat to another."

after this incident Alexander has fallen in favour and was in fact self exiled (probably fearing for his own safety) ... Philip exiling Alexander's companions and making it clear that he was not to become the Makedonian heir...

It comes to no surprise then that Alexander moved so swiftly in killing almost all other royal competitors to the throne ... such actions were absolutely instrumental in securing his rule (his rule's legitimacy been questioned by his very father ) and eliminating the very real prospects of a conspiracy or coup ... simply put -given the political context it would have been too dangerous to allow any competitors to live ...

Similarly Cassander had Alexander's child killed in order to secure his reign or Octavianus (Rome's first emperor) had Caesar's son killed , Ottoman Sultans killed their brothers and so on ... so you see political necessity and a common sense of self-preservance and realism imposed such actions-they were not the results of ruthless monstrosity ...

2. They accuse Alexander of razing cities and slaying populations... to my knowledge three are the cities that he has razed... Thebes , Gaza and Tyros ... however you must consider that exandrapodismos (=the slaying of all males and the enslavement of females and children ) followed by raping, pillaging and looting remained in fact the common conduct of war all throughout ancient times and medieval...

even politicians that were considered relatively moderate and considerate had their fair share in such actions... Philip had indeed razed Olynth (to answer your question) and before him Pericles exandrapodised Samos (or was it Chios???) - a very common practice of Atheneans to the allies that decided to abandon them... similarly the Spartans razed Plataea (just 50 years after their own forefathers fought and died alongside the Plataeans against Persians)...the Romans razed Carthage and the Crusaders massacred, raped and pillaged Constantinopol and Jerusalem etc etc etc ... in fact the cases of similar exandrapodisms in history are counted in tenths (if not hundreds)... so what was Alexander's "atrocity" then ??? simply implementing his time's right of war ???

3.They accuse Alexander of ordering old Parmenion's death and for the slaying of Cleitus... the truth is that Parmenion's death has become a necessity... Parmenion's son Philotas has been proven to participate in a conspiracy ... Makedonian martial law imposed the fate of alleged conspirators under the assembled army's verdict... so the hardened unforgiving army assembled and being courtmartalled-the conspirators were condemned and put to death... meanwhile before setting for his Bactrian campaign Alexander has left Parmenion with a guard at Ekbatana ... Ekbatana was crucial in controlling Alexander's logistics ... with the Makedonian army being caught into hostile territory and Parmenion controlling not only food but most importantly the flow of information between Alexander and his empire- having killed Philotas it was simply too dangerous to allow Parmenion to live ... so this too was an assassination imposed by military/political necessity ... and so was the killing/execution of head mutineers/conspirators and so on later in Alexander's life...

the death of Cleitus the Black was indeed a crime of passion and an atrocity... even more so taking into consideration that Cleitus was in fact Alexander's saviour in the battle of Issus... It must have been real demeaning for a megalomaniac like Alexander to know that his life was owed to someone else... so i guess in a subconscious level Alexander hated and loathed Cleitus and that being drunk and feeling insulted he killed him... let us remember once more Plutarch's extract were the drunken Philippus actually moved forth to slay his son ...
no more comments here...

I think Seleukid kings were the true heirs of Alexandros, because their was the only kingdom that tried to unite the persian and greek culture. Also, they continuously tried to re-conquere the Alexandros' empire, while for example Ptolemies didn't. Ptolemies only tried to capture Syria, but no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Except that he had Attalus and Parmenion in Asia and Antipatar in Greece. Alexander's murder of his brother and cousin were unnessecary, Philip had spared the latter, and his innitial brutality earned him enemies in the Southern Cities until his death. Philip's Hegemony was established through cunning, and without destruction, by his death he had made Macedonia at least moderately acceptable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Also, Alexander did not kill his brother, only those members of his family his father had already spared.

---

:inquisitive:

I think the true heirs to Alexander were the Celts. They have the pretty blond hair, the glory-seeking mentality, the complete nutty attitude, and just like Alexander, they liked smashing things and having people adore them. They also tended to kill people at the dinner table at times (like Alexander happened to do), loved to run people over with horses (another Alexanderian trait), and didn't like the Romans very much (something Alexander was starting to feel).

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What did Alexander do? Took Daddy's army, and Daddy's generals, and went crazy.

.

---

Didn't George Dubya Bush try and do something similar? He had the supposedly strongest army in the world and has led the country into a steady decline. When can we see america break up into the sucessor states I wonder?

Guess that makes the inbred deep south as the Ptolmies. Wonder who forms the other factions? Careful of the roman red tide...(china maybe?)

History repeats itself.

Keep the politics out, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frontline1944

Keep the politics out, eh?

---

He said it :yes: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

:inquisitive:

---

He killed the baby and his mother Cleopatra, not the epileptic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

His death was truly tragical - one not meant for a great general like him....

---

Is there ever a great general who enjoyed a death deserved his life?
From Cyrus to Alexander, from Marius to Caesar...
However, maybe Caesar's death can be considered worthwhile, as a price for his ambition and a sacrifice for the newborn empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

3.They accuse Alexander of ordering old Parmenion's death and for the slaying of Cleitus... the truth is that Parmenion's death has become a necessity... Parmenion's son Philotas has been proven to participate in a conspiracy ... Makedonian martial law imposed the fate of alleged conspirators under the assembled army's verdict... so the hardened unforgiving army assembled and being courtmartalled-the conspirators were condemned and put to death... meanwhile before setting for his Bactrian campaign Alexander has left Parmenion with a guard at Ekbatana ... Ekbatana was crucial in controlling Alexander's logistics ... with the Makedonian army being caught into hostile territory and Parmenion controlling not only food but most importantly the flow of information between Alexander and his empire- having killed Philotas it was simply too dangerous to allow Parmenion to live ... so this too was an assassination imposed by military/political necessity ... and so was the killing/execution of head mutineers/conspirators and so on later in Alexander's life.....

---

philotas was accused of pretty much nothing. alexander just wanted to kill parmenio for being related to attalus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fleaza

philotas was accused of pretty much nothing. alexander just wanted to kill parmenio for being related to attalus

---

are you sure abt that ??? i specificaly remember reading that Philotas was involved at a conspiracy-along with others (who were also executed) at JFC Fuller's Generalship of Alexander the Great... i'll have to dig out the book and look up for the details ( i read it abt 5 years ago)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

are you sure abt that ??? i specificaly remember reading that Philotas was involved at a conspiracy-along with others (who were also executed) at JFC Fuller's Generalship of Alexander the Great... i'll have to dig out the book and look up for the details ( i read it abt 5 years ago)...

---

Read Arian, the evidence involved pretty much two things.

1. Philotas not sharing his remaining horses out to the cavalry (Alexander had pushed the army too hard, and had insufficient remounts. In such a situation the commanders had to share out their horses).

2. Philotas did not inform the King of a conspiracy he had been told of by a page. His excuse was that he didn't believe the page and was trying to get the other pages in trouble.

No actual evidence was presented, no one identified him as a conspirator. All the extant sources report it as an example of either Alexander's paranoia or his manipulation by his generals.

Let me give you a piece of advice, Fuller is 50 years out of date, he produced a different kind of "narrative" history which is widely discredited today. Even N.G.L. Hammond's work has recieved a great deal of criticism since his death for an excess of positivism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Read Arian, the evidence involved pretty much two things.

1. Philotas not sharing his remaining horses out to the cavalry (Alexander had pushed the army too hard, and had insufficient remounts. In such a situation the commanders had to share out their horses).

2. Philotas did not inform the King of a conspiracy he had been told of by a page. His excuse was that he didn't believe the page and was trying to get the other pages in trouble.

No actual evidence was presented, no one identified him as a conspirator. All the extant sources report it as an example of either Alexander's paranoia or his manipulation by his generals.

Let me give you a piece of advice, Fuller is 50 years out of date, he produced a different kind of "narrative" history which is widely discredited today. Even N.G.L. Hammond's work has recieved a great deal of criticism since his death for an excess of positivism.

---

thanx i'll try to locate Arian's extract and see what i find ...

The the whole thing, bear in mind it's written 500 years after the fact; and it's the best source we have.

on another note Fuler's book was not that bad...
sure he was a bit eccentric and definitely not a historian aaaand his approach was rather "armchair" ...
however the second part dealing with a detailed analysis of Alexander's major battles was top notch...
bear in mind that Fuller was in fact an influential army officer with a deep understanding of strategy and tactics so at least 50% of his book counts for sth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

on another note Fuler's book was not that bad...
sure he was a bit eccentric and definitely not a historian aaaand his approach was rather "armchair" ...
however the second part dealing with a detailed analysis of Alexander's major battles was top notch...
bear in mind that Fuller was in fact an influential army officer with a deep understanding of strategy and tactics so at least 50% of his book counts for sth...

---

All that, and a Facist.

Remember, his analysis is based on positivist history.

I would say noone since none of them where able to maintain Alexanders empire as one but several diffrent successors.

All this Alexander hatred is a little bit biased in my opinion... :inquisitive:

ARCHE SELEUKEIA

To the topic... such a big empire, so fast, I think none could control it too long, even Alexander would have been smacked by the rebellions after the "full" conquest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I think none could control it too long, even Alexander would have been smacked by the rebellions after the "full" conquest.

---

The conquest of all Asia and the forging of a united GrecoAsian empire was Alexander's lifegoal so he had some ideas on how to secure his conquests ... he intended to fuse Macedonian and Persian nobilities through marriage to create a new ruling class and adopt a "soft" type of rule... religious syncritism, political equality, respect of local customs and active utilization of exhisting power structures were means of this policy ...

The introduction of proskenysis was indicative of Alexander's intention to rule as a legitimate successor to the Aechemenids adopting the Aechemenid political practices and state ideology... the fact that he imposed that Greeks too should also be subject to this kneeling before him is in accordance to his program of political equality of all before the High-King...

The creation of a multitude of autonomous city-states (in the model of Greece) and especially among the empire's edges did not only serve the purpose of military-political control and colonization but far more importantly served in projecting Greek culture and the bourgeois paradigm into tribal societies ... cultural influence (as everyone knows) is in fact the most permanent kind of rule and the one with the most far-reaching, dramatic political consequences...

Should Alexander have lived another 30 years he would have fully forged his vision of unity... instead we are now forced to comment on his "unfinished" dream -trully an oeuvre in progress which was unexpectedly interrupted ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

The conquest of all Asia and the forging of a united GrecoAsian empire was Alexander's lifegoal so he had some ideas on how to secure his conquests ... he intended to fuse Macedonian and Persian nobilities through marriage to create a new ruling class and adopt a "soft" type of rule... religious syncritism, political equality, respect of local customs and active utilization of exhisting power structures were means of this policy ...

The introduction of proskenysis was indicative of Alexander's intention to rule as a legitimate successor to the Aechemenids adopting the Aechemenid political practices and state ideology... the fact that he imposed that Greeks too should also be subject to this kneeling before him is in accordance to his program of political equality of all before the High-King...

The creation of a multitude of autonomous city-states (in the model of Greece) and especially among the empire's edges did not only serve the purpose of military-political control and colonization but far more importantly served in projecting Greek culture and the bourgeois paradigm into tribal societies ... cultural influence (as everyone knows) is in fact the most permanent kind of rule and the one with the most far-reaching, dramatic political consequences...

Should Alexander have lived another 30 years he would have fully forged his vision of unity... instead we are now forced to comment on his "unfinished" dream -trully an oeuvre in progress which was unexpectedly interrupted ...

---

Dissagree, Alexander showed no interest in running his Empire, only conquering it. He brutallity and injustice came to the fore when he returned from India, and the Empire was already moving into revolt.

To say nothing of his destruction of his own army by the desert.

Consider this, Philip built the Army, and it stayed loyal to Alexander as long as he stayed loyal to his father's generals. As the conquests progressed the army begins to unravel, until it revolts, twice. Alexander blames the front-rankers and has some of them executed.

As I said, I child with Daddy's toys.

It's easy to see only the best or worst in leaders who are alive today, much less those who died over a thousand years ago. Espescially when they were literally hailed by their contemporaries as being either divine, demonic, or drunk.