Most legitimate diadochi?

[ARCHIPPOS]

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...