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 37 67.27%
Sulla 18 32.73%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2017, 01:56 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,707

In Olympias: Mother of Alexander the Great, Elizabeth Carney wrote
"
Quote:
When a man is polygamous particularly when he is a ruler, the relative status of his wives inevitably becomes an issue. Some polygamous ancient monarchs, like Egyptian pharaohs, chose an official chief wife or queen whose unique status was indicted by a title, but even the king, in Philp's day, did not use a title, and certainly none of his wives did. Earlier scholars used to sort through the woman on Satyru's list, categorizing some as wives and others as mere concubine or worse, but most would now agree that this approach was a mistake, borne out of our own monogamous prejudices, those of southern Greeks, and the innuendos that arose from the rivalries of Philp's wives and their factions. The list Athenaeus preserve, as we have seen, explicitly refers to marriages.
Quote:
While nothing indicates any institutionalized ranking of Philip's wives, functional ranking of wives tend to develop in polygamous circumstances and certain this seem to have happened at Philips' courts. Several factors contribute to the status of wives. First and foremost was the production of a male child treated as heir to the throne, but the production of any male children, the earlier the better, was clearly vital. As in Molossia there was a tendency towards primogeniture, but no really regular pattern of succession.
Quote:
Though Philip's wives competed for status, particularly because no fixed status marked out a chief wife or heir, one should not exaggerate or stereotype the degree of this competition.

Here we see she talk about a lot of different information, but from what I take, it seems simple.

First, the polygamous marriages are at least nominally all equal, there may be dominate wife/wives, but there are no CHIEF wife as a title or the kind that the Chinese or Egyptian would use to designate one.

And

Second, all the legitimate male children, while the older ones are preferred, can succeed the throne.

Which brings back to my original point.

Philip was born in the same generation as his brothers. He would have receive the same kind of royal education, and would be at the minimum a backup as heir. He was born in 380, whereas his father married his mother in 390. Alexander was semi-officially the heir when he was 16, but even if Alexander II was born almost immediately, he would have been 9, as a child, Philip would not be ruled out at all to be kings. If Alexander II was say, 16 or 17, then yes, I would totally see the logic behind this 'Philip couldn't be born to be king' after all, the eldest was already mature and capable of governance (or bad governance I suppose) so there would be no real reason for Philip to be consider for kingship. But Alexander II wasn't, and the idea that Philip COULDN’T be born to king is just bogus.
mariusj is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2017, 02:00 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,707

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
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.
Well they are wrong. They are claiming both Olympias was a chief wife, whereas no such title existed, or that the eldest son is the only one who can succeed, which is also bogus.

Therefore, Philip was born at least in consideration to be king, whereas Sulla was born in obscurity.
mariusj is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 02:02 AM   #43

Salaminia's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Bluff
Posts: 626

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
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

You are going to actually come up with a source that show evidence of existence of such title or formalized position.

To begin with, your assertions that I do not read what you post is false. Carney, like all historians, is not always right and has been challenged: that is part and parcel of academia. As I've said elsewhere, ancient history is not replete with black and white certainties. Olympias was clearly the "number one" wife just as Eurydike plainly was for Amyntas. The sources (Diodoros) refer to her as the "queen" and the her entourage as the "royal family" (19.51.4 for example). Now, this is after Alexander's death but similar applied at the time of Philip's death. You make much of the spat at the wedding and Alexander and his mother's departure. Alexander's position in the royal family (and that of his mother) is revealed by the dedicated steps Philip undertook to have him return to court (which he duly did). That Arrhidaios was never in Philip's plans is shown by his plan to marry him off to the daughter of the Asian satrap, Pixodaros (Plut. Alex. 10). He was regent in Philip's absence in 240. He was clearly the presumptive heir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
All of which supported my position, as the son of king, Philip was well within his rights to succeed.
It seems that you do not understand. Archelaos, as a bastard, was never in line for the throne until he killed the heir. That done, he usurped the throne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
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.
Again, you seem not to understand. Only if he murdered his two older brothers. Alexander was born to succeed his father. As he plainly did. On his death, with no offspring, the throne then passed to the next eldest brother. It's pretty straightforward: had Alexander survived neither Perdikkas or Philip would ever be king (as happened in Argead history - dead end lines). The eldest inherited here. In fact, he, as youngest, was sent off as a hostage.

Even at Perdikkas' death, Philip was not in any line to succeed his brother. Why? Because Perdikkas had a "legitimate heir": his son. Whether Philip acted as regent or took the throne having persuaded the Macedonians to give it to him because of the dangers facing Macedonia is irrelevant to the point. Which point is that Philip was not the legitimate heir on Perdikkas' death.

Last edited by Salaminia; November 14th, 2017 at 02:05 AM.
Salaminia is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 02:37 AM   #44

Salaminia's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Bluff
Posts: 626

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post

Which brings back to my original point.

Philip was born in the same generation as his brothers. He would have receive the same kind of royal education, and would be at the minimum a backup as heir. He was born in 380, whereas his father married his mother in 390. Alexander was semi-officially the heir when he was 16, but even if Alexander II was born almost immediately, he would have been 9, as a child, Philip would not be ruled out at all to be kings. If Alexander II was say, 16 or 17, then yes, I would totally see the logic behind this 'Philip couldn't be born to be king' after all, the eldest was already mature and capable of governance (or bad governance I suppose) so there would be no real reason for Philip to be consider for kingship. But Alexander II wasn't, and the idea that Philip COULDN’T be born to king is just bogus.
Right. My turn to fail to understand. Amyntas ruled for 23 years. It matters not how old Alexander II was when Philip was born (last of the three, though there was a sister as well) because he was the eldest. He was very clearly old enough to succeed his father on his death and duly did so. There is nothing certain about the marriage date of Amyntas and Eurydike and there is nothing certain about the birth date of Alexander II. Carney's guess that he was born no later than 388 is based only on the fact that he, as eldest son, duly succeeded Amyntas and must have been 18 (Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, p 41). Regardless, by the time Philip was born (abt 382), there were two sons ahead of him. While few things are black and white, what most certainly is black and white is the fact that the eldest son (Alexander II - Just. 7.4.8) inherited the throne and, on his death, the next eldest.

Carney much discusses Egyptian practice but Egypt (even under the Ptolemies) was not Macedonia. It is clear that Amyntas, just like Philip, was polygamous (Just. 7.4.5). Just like Philip, Amyntas had a "dominant wife" and this wife produced the heir to the throne. And, just like Olympias, Eurydike made much of her position during Amyntas' lifetime and, especially, afterwards. The name was pregnant with power in the years following.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Well they are wrong. They are claiming both Olympias was a chief wife, whereas no such title existed...
I would note that there are inverted commas about royal wife. As I've said above, both Amyntas and Philip had a mother of the royal heir. That wife was certainly the most important at court.

Last edited by Salaminia; November 14th, 2017 at 02:45 AM.
Salaminia is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 02:40 AM   #45

Salaminia's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Bluff
Posts: 626

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
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.
Semantics? It is not me walking back from an original statement!
Salaminia is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 03:23 AM   #46

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,592
Blog Entries: 1

The poll is 71.43% in favor of Philip so far.

I'll make my post tomorrow.
Duke Valentino is online now  
Old November 14th, 2017, 03:51 AM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,881

Who cares? I never rested my arguments on popularity, I made that clear throughout. Besides, in the case of leadership it's subjective enough that either side could make a winning argument, depending on what they preferred. Now for generalship it's Sulla by a mile.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 03:55 AM   #48

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,634

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
The poll is 71.43% in favor of Philip so far.
Can't see many means of comparison myself. Amazed so many people are participating
johnincornwall is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 06:05 AM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,147

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
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.



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.
My tune earlier. Let's clarify something. AGAIN you're replying to a post that didn't involve you in the exchange and you're taking umbridge with something I wrote to someone else, that didn't involve you, so you're walking into a debate you don't even know the context of.

1. You proving that Plebeians held power doesn't prove Patricians didn't. Rome wasn't a zero sum game. By claiming Antonius or Pompeius as some examples of Plebeian power is fine, as long as you still acknowledge that Patricians still had a whole lot of clout in the Republic. And if you actually were well read and honest, you'd admit that in a heartbeat.

But I bet you wont...

2. Another poster claimed nobody in Caesar's family had risen to prominense in hundreds of years. I proved otherwise and not a damn word you wrote proves that the people of Rome would have heard the name Julius Caesar and said "Who the hell is that?"

3. In the future, you reply to posts I write to you. Don't reply to exchanges you weren't involved in because you are clearly not reading the original posts that created those exchanges, causing you to make assumptions and arguing for the clear sake of arguing and nothing else. Not a damn thing I wrote has been wrong. Not. A. Single. Thing.

Furthermore, I'm not the one who challenged when I said Sulla was noble, nor am I the one who claimed Philip II was born to be king. If you want to find fault, both those statements are ludicrous, go find fault with that person.
aggienation is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 10:44 AM   #50
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,707

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
To begin with, your assertions that I do not read what you post is false.
Sal, you wrote

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

Well, I am sorry if I came to that conclusion when I type down what she wrote, and specifically she wrote that there are no chief wife for kings, and no anointed heirs until much later. And you typed the above.

If you disagree with a well published author, that's fine, but I like to see sources where you claim that 1) there are anointed heirs at their birth (is that your position? I arrive at this conclusion from a) your claim that Alexander was BORN to be king, which he wasn't, Alexander wasn't really considered heir until he was 14 according from what I read, and b) your claim that Phillip was NOT at all born to be king, that he was excluded from succession) 2) that there are chief wives, although after I read back, we may differ on our opinion what is a 'royal wife.' I think you mean that there is a chief wife for the king, and rest are either lesser wives, or concubine, which I disagree base on reading. If that's not your position, that you mean there are many royal wives, and Olympia is just one of the royal wife, then I can agree with that position. Otherwise, I like to see sources that would contradicts her.



Quote:
Carney, like all historians, is not always right and has been challenged: that is part and parcel of academia. As I've said elsewhere, ancient history is not replete with black and white certainties. Olympias was clearly the "number one" wife just as Eurydike plainly was for Amyntas. The sources (Diodoros) refer to her as the "queen" and the her entourage as the "royal family" (19.51.4 for example).
No one is arguing Olympia was a royal harlot.

What makes some of Philip's wives queen, and others not?

I honestly don't see how in YOUR MONOGAMOUS VIEW a king can only have 1 queen. Whereas from the writing of Carney, it seems quite clear that it wasn't the case. Do you have sources to back up that only Olympia was consider as queen and the rest not?

As Carney states, and I transcribed

"Earlier scholars used to sort through the woman on Satyru's list, categorizing some as wives and others as mere concubine or worse, but most would now agree that this approach was a mistake, borne out of our own monogamous prejudices, those of southern Greeks, and the innuendos that arose from the rivalries of Philp's wives and their factions. The list Athenaeus preserve, as we have seen, explicitly refers to marriages."

Do you have any evidence that Phillip as king only has one queen, and the rest of his 'wives' are mere concubines.

Seems like Alexander had an older brother, who lost favors to Alexander when Alexander was around 14. Which means, at some point, some other woman (if you were correct) who was not queen had an older son who was heir presumptive. And at another point towards the end of Philip's life, he married another woman (and if you were correct) who was not queen, but had relative that challenged Alexander's legitimacy as he states something about now we can finally have a legitimate heir.

These 2 points add up to point to that no, there are no anointed heirs at least not in the way we view them, and no there are no queen and rest harems, but these are all equal marriages.


Quote:
Now, this is after Alexander's death but similar applied at the time of Philip's death. You make much of the spat at the wedding and Alexander and his mother's departure. Alexander's position in the royal family (and that of his mother) is revealed by the dedicated steps Philip undertook to have him return to court (which he duly did).
Well we are going to disagree on this part. Philip took side against Alexander, or did nothing. It would be unthinkable for the king to allow someone else to undermine his heir, and it would be worse to allow them to just leave.

However, I still think Alexander would be Philip's choice at this point, as Alexander has proven himself exemplar both in Philip's absence, and also in the field with Philip. I also don't think it is as 100% as you think to think his position was.

Quote:
That Arrhidaios was never in Philip's plans is shown by his plan to marry him off to the daughter of the Asian satrap, Pixodaros (Plut. Alex. 10). He was regent in Philip's absence in 240. He was clearly the presumptive heir.
And we agree here except one thing. Alexander was the presumptive heir AT 240.

That was clear. That's something I think everyone can agree on. But recall our difference is whether or not you are BORN presumptive heir.

Remember how this all started? That Philip was not born king, which I disagree with? And how now you claim Alexander was born king, which I also disagree?

And yes at time Arrhidaios was clearly out of the picture, which means he was in picture before.

Also, Philip's own marriages involving marrying securing the border of the kingdom and peace with neighbors and other political issues. I don't think the fact that one of his son marries the daughter of some important nobleman is indication that he wasn't in the picture.

Quote:
It seems that you do not understand. Archelaos, as a bastard, was never in line for the throne until he killed the heir. That done, he usurped the throne.

Again, you seem not to understand. Only if he murdered his two older brothers. Alexander was born to succeed his father. As he plainly did.
I think there are difference in this.

When Philip's father was alive, my point is that Philip COULD HAVE succeed his own father. Your point was the he could not have.

When Philip was alive, my point was Arrhidaios could have succeed Philip, your point was that he could not have.

My point is not that when Philip's brother died, could he succeed, the idea has always been the son of king would succeed. So that when you are born the son of a king, you were born into great potential for power.

If you can show some succession patterns, which does not seem to be around, then maybe you can make the argument on what dq Philip and what dq Arrhidaios ON THE DAY Alexander was born. But I have a pretty penny on you can't show what dq Arrhidaios the day Alexander was born, or that if Alexander was not born, then Arrhidaios would be king.



Quote:
On his death, with no offspring, the throne then passed to the next eldest brother. It's pretty straightforward: had Alexander survived neither Perdikkas or Philip would ever be king (as happened in Argead history - dead end lines). The eldest inherited here. In fact, he, as youngest, was sent off as a hostage.
This is bs. Is the eldest inherit, or not? Was Alexander the eldest? No? Then your claim just fallen apart didn't it?

So Philip picked Alexander, after he seen both young man in action, which blows away your 'eldest inherited here' away.
Quote:
Even at Perdikkas' death, Philip was not in any line to succeed his brother.

Why? Because Perdikkas had a "legitimate heir": his son. Whether Philip acted as regent or took the throne having persuaded the Macedonians to give it to him because of the dangers facing Macedonia is irrelevant to the point. Which point is that Philip was not the legitimate heir on Perdikkas' death.
You can go through all my writing, I have consistently says the son of a king would succeed him. Did I ever type the brother of a king should succeed? No?

The point was when Philip was born, he was born as one of the heir to the throne.

You saying Philip was not the legitimate heir to Perdikkas is pointless because I never claim he was.
mariusj 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 06:56 PM
Best political leader/military leader partnership in history Don Cartagena War and Military History 27 April 17th, 2016 07:16 PM
Sulla or Marius SVLLA Ancient History 23 December 30th, 2012 12:05 PM
Marius vs. Sulla Salah Speculative History 29 December 21st, 2012 11:16 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.