Viggen Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 A review by "Ursus" "The legacy of Alexander the Great should be apparent to any Romanophile. While there had been cultural diffusion occurring between East and West for some time, Alexander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Isn't Alexander's mother held to be responsible for Phillip's death by others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Great review Ursus! I've also read and enjoyed Cartledge's book. I have to agree with you on Cartledge's conclusions - it doesn't really fit in with the historical record. As Peter Green mentions in his biography of Alexander - a large part of his success with consolidating his conquests was that he didn't force Greek culture on the conquered, at least initially. He did demand resources and soldiers, but that is about it. As a result, many within his empire remained outside of Hellenic influence and Alexander's successors (the Diadochi) certainly held the conquered people's in contempt. Notice the Ptolemy dynasty's attitude towards the Egyptians. Cartledge's ideas seem to be a rehashing of W.W Tarn's views on Alexander following the Second World War. At the time the United Nations were being formed, and Tarn wanted a 'modern' Alexander to fit with this new institution. Tarn mentioned Alexander holding a feast for the Persians and Macedonians, and he cites this as an example that Alexander wanted them to join together as one people - all equal in his eyes. Yet, he doesn't mention that Alexander had made strict rules on where certain people were allowed to sit at this banquet, and the Persians certainly didn't get any good seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Isn't Alexander's mother held to be responsible for Phillip's death by others? Philip was assassinated by Pausanias, an ex-lover he had betrayed. Philip had allowed this man to be raped by Attalus' thugs (Attalus had become a member of Philip's family after Philip had married his daughter, Cleopatra). Philip's failure to redress this injustice led to Pausanias taking matters into his own hands. There were rumors that Olympias was responsible for his murder (and there was also some rumors that Alexander was associated too). Alexander quickly executed Attalus, while Pausanias was killed as he fled the murder scene. As such, it was difficult to trulyt know who was responsible. There were some rumors that Aristotle investigated the matter. Edited November 23, 2007 by DecimusCaesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Some people did suspect Alexander's mother. But I agree with Cartledge that the person who profited most from the death was Alexander. Had Phillip not been murdered Alexander would have become a footnote to history, with nothing to do but sit on the throne of Macedon and entertain nobles instead of becoming a world conquerer. It was all highly convenient that Phillip was murdered when he was, and I have no problem believing Alexander used the quarrel between Pausanias and Attalus as a proxy for his own agenda (and had them both killed when the deed was done). Olympias may have been a co-conspirator but I don't think she was the driving force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts