Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


View Poll Results: Who was the greater overall leader, Philip of Macedon or Sulla?
Philip II of Macedon 33 70.21%
Sulla 14 29.79%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:27 PM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,532

You say your goal isn't to compare, yet nowhere did I dispute Sulla was a patrician, and my claim Phillip was in line for the throne is correct (due to the nature of the Macedonian throne, as Marius explained). Phillip was born to be a King, even if it wasn't a certainty it would fall to him. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with semantics though (well, I do, it's because your argument is weak).

If I had made an error though, and I didn't, it would be pretty ridiculous to criticise me for it given the dozen or so factual errors Duke (the guy championing Phillip) had made on these threads about him.

Last edited by Caesarmagnus; November 13th, 2017 at 05:14 PM.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2017, 05:13 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
On the basis of my progress on that other thread, I don't like your chances of getting any of this understood! You are, though, correct: Philip was not born to be king. If he was "born to be" anything it was a prostates or regent.
Oh please with this passive aggressive stance. You don't need to wink to say something. You want to call someone's claim bullshit, then bring out your sources that says our claims are bullshit. I don't think I understand 100% of Macedonian history, and if you can show me evidence that Macedonia follows the eldest son rules, then I will concede. However at no point did ANY of you show any evidence except 'but Philip was not born to be king.' Well I am sorry but who the hell was, was his brothers born to be king? I extrapolated my information and understanding from this source.

Elizabeth Carney wrote in 'The politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander, and the Murder of Philip'
Quote:
Philip's marriage to Olympias differed from modern marriages not only in its motivation but in it's context: it was polygamous. Olympias was neither the first nor the last of his seven wives. The fact that she was one of the many wives affected Olympias' situation (and that of her son) in innumerable ways. Moreover, whereas Egyptian pharaohs, although even more enthusiastically polygamous than Macedonian monarchs, had chief wives so designated by title, no evidence confirms the existence of any such title or formalized position for a royal Macedoinan wife. A variety of factors may have affected the status of royal wives, including the prominence of a woman's family and importance of the alliance which had caused her to become a wife, but the single most import factor was the production of male children. Indications that a royal father was treating a woman's son as heir would dramatically enhance her status....While Philip may have begun to indicate that he considered Alexander his heir somewhat earlier than our first extant evidence demonstrates, it is unlikely to have been much earlier than the beginning of her son's teens. Only then would Philip have been able to make a reasonable judgement about Alexander's potential for rule. Moreover, Philip had another, probably slightly older son, Arrhidaeus, and many years may have passed before it became evident that Arrhidaeus was capable of performing little more than ceremonial tasks and was not capable to rule on his own... Initially Olympias and Alexander had no reason to view this last marriage any differently from earlier ones, although the nature of polygamy meant that every new marriages inspired some insecurity. On the face of it, there could be no problem: any son of Cleopatra's would be a generation younger than the nearly adult Alexander. The presence of Alexander at the male drinking party after Cleopatra's wedding, as well as Olympias' continued presence at the court demonstrate that no trouble was expected. Yet the evens of the post-wedding drinking party proved unexpectedly explosive. The story is variously told by Plutarch, Athenaeus/Satyrus and Justin. In both Plutarch and Athenaeus, Attalus, in the course of the party, somehow questions the legitimacy of Alexander. In Plutarch, when Alexander threatens to turn on Attalus because of the insult, Philip instead of defending his son and presumed heir from his very public insult attempts to attack Alexander and fails only out of drunkenness. In Athenaeus, only Attalus and Alexander quarrel, but the narrator notes that after this, Alexander and Olympias leave court: obviously the implication of their departure is that Philip did nothing to alleviate the insult. In Justin, Philip joins the quarrel with Alexander on Attalus' side and nearly kills his son; Justin specifically says that mother and son depart because of the incident.
Here we can see that regardless of whether or not Philip was the first, second, or third son, he would have receive a top rated education the same as his brothers. That none of would would assumed to be born to be king.

So while Caesarmagus misspoke on this issue, you guys were also guilty in suggesting and implying that his older brother WAS SUPPOSE TO BE KING. Which was nonsense. They would all have receive an education, and that Philip or his brothers would be judged and if they were unfit to be king, well here are replacements.

Now I look forward to your sources that contradicts this. And I don't like to beat around the bushes. If you can't bring sources to contradict my claim but refuse to provide any sources, guess I must reply the same thing back to you.

Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Though I won't parade you through the market nude.
mariusj is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 05:16 PM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Philip born to royalty or born to be king?

Why don't you run off to Wikipedia to check real quick. That way you don't claim he was born to be king again.
Why don't you run off and show your sources, that any of Philip's brothers, or any of Macedonian princes was born to be king.

There are no rules to succession aside from been the royal prince (and sometimes you don't even need that. Philip's nephew would be next in line if Alexander dies according to Elizabeth Carney, as he married Philip's daughter).
mariusj is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 05:17 PM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
No, a false statement would be this:

"Phillip had the happy fortune of being born a King. "

Nobody who writes something that absurd has any authority to ever question another person's knowledge of ancient history.

Click the image to open in full size.
Yah dude, you think Sulla born to a patrician entitled him to greatness.

That's way worse than being born a King.
mariusj is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 05:29 PM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,532

I admit, I'm baffled by someone who grasps on the wording of a sentence to try and infer a technical error as their clinching argument, yet in the same breath makes an error that is ten times worse (and not technical). The substance is frankly more important. If we're resorting to pop culture references, I'll do my own and liken the situation in Macedonia to Thor and Loki in the first Thor film, when Odin tells them "only one of you can rule, but you were both born to be Kings". Macedonian inheritance to the throne hadn't been straightforward for a while. What's far more important than this semantic waffling is the actual substance, which is that Phillip was born to an awesome situation where he could readily assume power and influence, while Sulla was in almost the opposite situation. Your claim to the contrary, because Sulla was a patrician, is the error I'd be embarrassed about. It's wrong in substance, not just semantics.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 05:33 PM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
First, let's just clarify right off the bat that they were noble Patricians which pretty much guaranteed them a seat in the Senate as long as they had the money, and a high chance of winning election.
But that wasn't your tune earlier now was it?

And by the way, the nobles at this point include both Patricians and Plebeians.

If you think son of a Pompey couldn't get into senate, despite not having Patrician blood, then I don't know what you are smoking. Or that of Crassus. Hell, if Marcus was half a retard, he would still be in the senate. Crassus would ensure that.

Or are you going to tell me the son of Pompey wouldn't have a high chance of winning election?

Hence, your claim of patrician lineage was lame. The patricians and plebs have long join their ruling class together. And Sulla wasn't one of them. And you can't rebut this because that's the simple fact.
Quote:
Second, the Caesar branch of the Julii didn't even exist until shortly before the start of the 2nd Cent BC so they couldn't well have produced any consuls bearing the name Caesar before that. They were an offshoot branch of another Patrician Julii family, the Julii Libones.

Yah, in 379, Lucius Julius Iulus was a tribune with consular power. In 267, L. Julius Libo was consul. Between 112 years in between? No a single Julii sniff the consular purple. Then in 157, Sex. Julius Caesar was consul. Sex. Julius Caesar in 91, L. Julius Caesar in 90, L. Julius Caesar in 64, and our friend C. Julius Caesar was consul in 59.

Between 379 and 59, in 320 years, and thus 640 consuls (if not more) 7 Julii wore the consular purple. That is 1%.

Do you know how many Licinius Crassus wore the purple in that time? 8. Eight Licinius Crassus wore the damn purple. 13 Licinius wore the purpose in the mean time, if we just go with the Licinius gen.

Come tell me again how easy it is for this famous family to be consul again?


And any patrician could sell their daughters for money. You are saying all of them could be in the senate by selling their daughters. I call your bull and I parade you through the market.

Last edited by mariusj; November 13th, 2017 at 05:37 PM.
mariusj is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 12:09 AM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,532

To note some of the other things Sulla did; he was a well regarded soldier over many years prior to ascending to the rank of general, from the war against Jugurtha to his exploits against the Germans. He led the first ever Roman army across the Euphrates, after expelling Armenia from Cappadocia. His solutions to complex political problems were both unorthodox and cunning in the extreme, finding solutions never before attempted or even imagined, and which in many cases basically created the model for future tyrants like Stalin. He essentially created the balance which allows for total top down power, with minimal risk to himself or the structures of the state, while not allowing the power to utterly corrupt him. It's kind of amazing he set things up so well he could go and retire to a villa after all the stuff he did, including waves of slaughtered nobles, and his reforms were far sighted in many ways (and not in others), correctly identifying the problems that had caused the Republic to spiral out of control.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 01:18 AM   #38

Salaminia's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 462

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Oh please with this passive aggressive stance. You don't need to wink to say something. You want to call someone's claim bullshit, then bring out your sources that says our claims are bullshit...

So while Caesarmagus misspoke on this issue, you guys were also guilty in suggesting and implying that his older brother WAS SUPPOSE TO BE KING. Which was nonsense. They would all have receive an education, and that Philip or his brothers would be judged and if they were unfit to be king, well here are replacements.

Now I look forward to your sources that contradicts this. And I don't like to beat around the bushes. If you can't bring sources to contradict my claim but refuse to provide any sources, guess I must reply the same thing back to you.
"Passive aggressive"??!! Dear me, upset not much? I shan't stoop to calling your (or Magus') position bovine dung but you're welcome to keep on saying so!

Now, later Argead practice was unapologetically polygamous. Carney is right in that there can be an "annointed heir" in the event of many sons and, while it is not applicable to this context, Lagid Kings did this. This was not the "usual" practice though. Normal practice saw a "royal wife" or mother and her sons succeeded (Olympias for example). Rather than go through all Macedonian royalty from mythic times, several well attested examples should suffice. Herodotus 8.139:

Quote:
From that Perdiccas Alexander [1] was descended, being the son of Amyntas, who was the son of Alcetes; Alcetes' father was Aeropus, and his was Philippus; Philippus' father was Argaeus, and his again was Perdiccas, who won that lordship.
And so we see that the son of the king would succeed to the throne. Plato, Gorgias, 471b-c (cf Ael. Var. Hist. 12.43):

Quote:
And after all these iniquities he [Archelaos] failed to observe that he had become a most wretched person and had no repentance, but a while later he refused to make himself happy by bringing up, as he was justly bound, his brother, the legitimate son of Perdiccas, a boy about seven years old who had a just title to the throne, and restoring the kingdom to him; but he cast him into a well and drowned him, and then told his mother Cleopatra that he had fallen in and lost his life while chasing a goose.
Here Archelaos, a bastard offspring, murders the legitimate heir, the son of Perdikkas. Again, the son inherits the father's throne (should he survive!).

When Amyntas died in 370, there were three brothers born of the "royal wife", Eurydike: Alexander, Perdikkas and Philip in age order. The throne went to Alexander II. He was murdered without offspring and the throne went to Perdikkas, who killed the usurper Ptolemy Alornos. When Perdikkas died in Illyria at the hands of Bardylis, he left a son, Amyntas. Justin, 7.5.9:

Quote:
Philippus, for a long time, acted, not as king, but as guardian to this infant; but when dangerous wars threatened, and it was too long to wait for the co-operation of a prince who was yet a child, he was forced by the people to take the government upon himself.
So we see the reason for the lack of clarity of Philip's accession to the throne. Even if, as moderns suppose, the Macedonian "assembly" set aside Amyntas for Philip, the fact remains the son of Perdikkas was the actual heir and remained a problem until Alexander III had him done away with. We also see that the throne went from oldest to youngest in succession.

At Philip's death two heirs presented: Arrhidaios (the eldest) and Alexander. Alexander had clearly been preferred and, pace Carney, it was all too apparent that the eldest son of Philip could not succeed to the throne. So much so that Alexander let him live in the carnage that was the elimination of possible threats which followed his accession.

I should think there's enough there but I can't vouch for your "anger management" issues!!

Last edited by Salaminia; November 14th, 2017 at 01:20 AM.
Salaminia is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 01:51 AM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
"Passive aggressive"??!! Dear me, upset not much? I shan't stoop to calling your (or Magus') position bovine dung but you're welcome to keep on saying so!
Uh huh. I know bullshit when I smell it, and I don't pretend unlike you.


Quote:
Now, later Argead practice was unapologetically polygamous. Carney is right in that there can be an "annointed heir" in the event of many sons and, while it is not applicable to this context, Lagid Kings did this. This was not the "usual" practice though. Normal practice saw a "royal wife" or mother and her sons succeeded (Olympias for example). Rather than go through all Macedonian royalty from mythic times, several well attested examples should suffice. Herodotus 8.139:
Caarney was pretty damn specific that Olympias IS NOT a royal wife. Consider I took the time to put down what she wrote, and she specifically says
Quote:
Moreover, whereas Egyptian pharaohs, although even more enthusiastically polygamous than Macedonian monarchs, had chief wives so designated by title, no evidence confirms the existence of any such title or formalized position for a royal Macedoinan wife.
You are going to actually come up with a source that show evidence of existence of such title or formalized position.

Quote:

From that Perdiccas Alexander [1] was descended, being the son of Amyntas, who was the son of Alcetes; Alcetes' father was Aeropus, and his was Philippus; Philippus' father was Argaeus, and his again was Perdiccas, who won that lordship.

And so we see that the son of the king would succeed to the throne.
My position has and will always be, until you show me evidence otherwise, that ALL legitimate sons of the king CAN succeed the throne. Whereas YOUR position, was the PHILIP WAS NOT GOING TO succeed the throne. You have shown nothing that contradicts Caarney or Gilbert. Since both are published scholars, I will take their view over yours until you can show me evidience why they are wrong, and you are right.


Quote:
Plato, Gorgias, 471b-c (cf Ael. Var. Hist. 12.43):

Here Archelaos, a bastard offspring, murders the legitimate heir, the son of Perdikkas. Again, the son inherits the father's throne (should he survive!).
All of which supported my position, as the son of king, Philip was well within his rights to succeed.

Quote:
When Amyntas died in 370, there were three brothers born of the "royal wife", Eurydike: Alexander, Perdikkas and Philip in age order. The throne went to Alexander II. He was murdered without offspring and the throne went to Perdikkas, who killed the usurper Ptolemy Alornos. When Perdikkas died in Illyria at the hands of Bardylis, he left a son, Amyntas. Justin, 7.5.9:

So we see the reason for the lack of clarity of Philip's accession to the throne. Even if, as moderns suppose, the Macedonian "assembly" set aside Amyntas for Philip, the fact remains the son of Perdikkas was the actual heir and remained a problem until Alexander III had him done away with. We also see that the throne went from oldest to youngest in succession.
How does this even suggest that Philip was NOT going to succeed his father?

Your expert opinion vs published author's expert opinion? I am sorry, I am going with the expert.

Quote:
At Philip's death two heirs presented: Arrhidaios (the eldest) and Alexander. Alexander had clearly been preferred and, pace Carney, it was all too apparent that the eldest son of Philip could not succeed to the throne. So much so that Alexander let him live in the carnage that was the elimination of possible threats which followed his accession.
Actually, I can tell you didn't read the source I painstakingly put down.

We don't know if Alexander was the preferred heir, as 3 ancient writers all put a story on the feast hall quarrel where someone challenged Alexander's legitimacy, Philip either sided against Alexander, or did nothing. If Alexander was the preferred heir at that moment, would Philip, a great statesman, really let his own heir presumptive, be insulted in the feast hall?

And Alexander and his mother both retired after that event.


Quote:
I should think there's enough there but I can't vouch for your "anger management" issues!!
Your condescending remarks and smirk tone surely brings out my worst side.


That just mean we deserve each other.
mariusj is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 02:38 AM   #40
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,532

Can we stop arguing about the exact degree of Phillip's succession? It's really not super relevant to the point, which is that Phillip was, by virtue of his birth, in a position to quickly and easily take over as ruler of his own country. Sulla was not in anything like as favourable a position, which is the point. Enough with the irrelevant semantics.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
greater, leader, philip, sulla



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marius vs Sulla DIVUS IVLIVS Ancient History 50 January 12th, 2018 07:56 PM
Best political leader/military leader partnership in history Don Cartagena War and Military History 27 April 17th, 2016 08:16 PM
Sulla or Marius SVLLA Ancient History 23 December 30th, 2012 01:05 PM
Marius vs. Sulla Salah Speculative History 29 December 22nd, 2012 12:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.