The Maddness of Alexander the Great: The Myth of Military Genius

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Executing people was a career for Makedonians. Look at all the people Philip had executed. By the time of Alexander the big players in Philip's court were Attalos, Antipatros, and Parmenion. The first thing Alexander did when he came to power was a purge, and the most prominent execution was that of Attalos and his family. Although Antipatros remained loyal. Parmenion as a prominent noble, general, and governor, who was apparently always in argument with Alexander, was a liability. It would not surprise me one bit if Parmenion was planning a revolt, along with half the Makedonian court at that time.

Contextually speaking, every Makedonian king was vying for power against courtiers and nobles. The court itself was composed by many nobles who had been subjugated by the Makedonian court. Their ancestors were probably kings themselves.

Second, Alexander was not known for his drinking. His outrageous behavior was exaggerated by later sources. Mostly to present Alexander as a Persian. In fact Rufus and others explicitly want to present Alexander as having adopted Persian culture. Who knows why Alexander stabbed his friend. But it sounds like Makedonians are belligerent drunks and Kleitos was being antagonistic.

Third, the execution of Philotas was most likely justified. No one really protested at his execution and he was accused by prominent officers such as Koinos. Who in fact was married to Philotas's sister. But killing Philotas without killing Parmenion was a mistake. If Parmenion was in retirement then there was no reason to keep him around either. If Philotas was conspiring then others probably were as well. It is the long standing theory of a greater conspiracy against Alexander which is impossible to prove. Including that he was ultimately poisoned. But which some incidents might support.

Bottom line: there was no lack of conspiracy and trouble in the Makedonian court, as the events after Alexander's death would prove.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I’m not trying to nitpick, just to maybe piggyback on your point and wonder aloud if there’s ever been an older, tougher SOB as Parmenio.

There are these guys:

Jean Thurel, or Jean Theurel (French pronunciation: [tyʁɛl]; 6 September 1698 – 10 March 1807),[3] was a fusilier of the French Army and a centenarian with an extraordinarily long career that spanned over 75 years of service in the Touraine Regiment. Born in the reign of Louis XIV and dying during that of Napoleon I, Thurel lived in three different centuries. Jean Thurel - Wikipedia


William Hiseland (6 August 1620 (claimed) – 7 February 1732), sometimes spelt William Hasland or Haseland, was an English and later British soldier and reputed supercentenarian. In 1709, at the purported age of eighty-nine, he fought at the Battle of Malplaquet and was believed to be the oldest soldier on the field. He claimed to become the last survivor of the English Civil Wars, which he said he had served in from 1642 to 1651. Hiseland attained the rank of sergeant. In extreme old age he became a Chelsea pensioner, although he had to give up his place as an in-pensioner when he married at the claimed age of 103. He is buried at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. William Hiseland - Wikipedia

 

[tomar]

There are these guys:

Jean Thurel, or Jean Theurel (French pronunciation: [tyʁɛl]; 6 September 1698 – 10 March 1807),[3] was a fusilier of the French Army and a centenarian with an extraordinarily long career that spanned over 75 years of service in the Touraine Regiment. Born in the reign of Louis XIV and dying during that of Napoleon I, Thurel lived in three different centuries. Jean Thurel - Wikipedia

75 years of service ???? since he allegedly enlisted at 18 that would mean he served until he was 93..... sounds rather strange and smells of some scam or other

some more recent research has him born no earlier than 1725 (instead of 1699 as initially claimed) .... registers show him getting married in 1750 (allegedly at 50) whilst his wife was 22.... both sides required the consent of parents , being minors (a minor was someone under 25 at the time, so presumably he was under 25 in 1750)

 

[Faramir]

I thought Alexander had Parmenion assassinated because of his son.

Parmenion's son was the problem and was assassinated and regrettably Parmenion was as well to avoid a blood feud in the Macedonian monarchy.

 

[tomar]

I thought Alexander had Parmenion assassinated because of his son.

Parmenion's son was the problem and was assassinated and regrettably Parmenion was as well to avoid a blood feud in the Macedonian monarchy.

I think the question is why did Alex have to resort to assassinations at all.... Not all great leaders had people in their entourage assassinated..... Why did he choose this solution?

 

[nuclearguy165]

Contextually speaking, every Makedonian king was vying for power against courtiers and nobles. The court itself was composed by many nobles who had been subjugated by the Makedonian court. Their ancestors were probably kings themselves.

Second, Alexander was not known for his drinking. His outrageous behavior was exaggerated by later sources. Mostly to present Alexander as a Persian. In fact Rufus and others explicitly want to present Alexander as having adopted Persian culture. Who knows why Alexander stabbed his friend. But it sounds like Makedonians are belligerent drunks and Kleitos was being antagonistic.

Third, the execution of Philotas was most likely justified. No one really protested at his execution and he was accused by prominent officers such as Koinos. Who in fact was married to Philotas's sister. But killing Philotas without killing Parmenion was a mistake. If Parmenion was in retirement then there was no reason to keep him around either. If Philotas was conspiring then others probably were as well. It is the long standing theory of a greater conspiracy against Alexander which is impossible to prove. Including that he was ultimately poisoned. But which some incidents might support.

Bottom line: there was no lack of conspiracy and trouble in the Makedonian court, as the events after Alexander's death would prove.

I agree that getting rid of Philotas, and of course Attalos, were justified in the circumstances. Still, I think Alexander might have been lucky that Parmenion’s soldiers didn’t revolt at his being killed, as he was far more respected than anyone else Alexander had killed, probably even Cleitos. To me, them revolting at that was more likely than Parmenion himself doing so in his 70’s and seemingly retired, especially if Alexander was simply to say that Philotas had died in combat, which he probably could have even had arranged.

Yeah, it is possible that Cassander and Antipatros poisoned Alexander but this of course can never be proven. It wouldn’t surprise me though as this is by far the easiest way to kill him, since combat/violence never seemed to do him in. I’ll bet almost any assassin may have been quaking in his boots at the prospect of having to kill Alexander violently if he wasn’t sound asleep or something like that. Hell, even Nader Shah, considerably older than Alexander at the time of his death, still slayed 2 of his 4 bodyguards-turned-assassins before being cut down.

Though all things considered, I totally get why Parmenion was a potential liability of sorts, but then why more so than Antipatros or Crateros? Indeed, this latter might have kept me up at night more than anyone else. He was still reasonably young and possibly the most respected man in the Macedonian army during Alexander’s reign after Alexander himself and Parmenion. He also had much more of the means and opportunity than Parmenion did. Maybe that could have been another “death in combat” scenario to consider?

 

[Faramir]

I think the question is why did Alex have to resort to assassinations at all.... Not all great leaders had people in their entourage assassinated..... Why did he choose this solution?

There was a reason and he found Parmenion's son was set up as a governor and Alexander became aware of disloyalty so had him killed as he could not afford someone like this in his rear able to work against him. Then of course what do you do with the father......

 

[Teslatron]

I think the question is why did Alex have to resort to assassinations at all.... Not all great leaders had people in their entourage assassinated..... Why did he choose this solution?

Again, it was fairly standard practice in the Makedonian court, before or after Alexander.
Since we really do not have a lot of info on how it really went down, the fact that after the assassination of Parmenion the soldiers he commanded just went about their day and didn't rise up probably means most people considered the actions justified.

 

[Olleus]

the fact that after the assassination of Parmenion the soldiers he commanded just went about their day and didn't rise up probably means most people considered the actions justified.

Or that they simply didn't care. Or didn't care enough to do something about it.

 

[nuclearguy165]

Or that they simply didn't care. Or didn't care enough to do something about it.

Or believed that trying to do anything about it would have been suicidal. Not only could probably more than 2 times as many loyal soldiers have borne down on them, but they were also deep in the middle of only recently subjugated territory.

 

[Lord Fairfax]

Mods, don't ban me, but I am saying this only rhetorically:

Mod edit - Vulgar content deleted

Most soldiers in war are about as eager to talk about their PTSD as you would be comfortable answering those questions in public. Ancient writers, even those who suffered from it, were probably not comfotable talking about it in public, much less putting their inner thoughts on paper.

I talk about it because I'm an ******* who couldn't give two ....., for the most part. In era where "toxic masculinity" was a real phenomenon, not some imagined slight by feminists, the men who wrote those histories would either try to negate the negative behviors of PTSD (such as extreme drinking) to just "being a man who can hold his liquor" or other BS like that. The histories that emphasize what Alexander did wrong without going out of their way to justify it were generally not his haigiogrpahers.

Simply put, its a lot easier to try to hide Ceasar's epilepsy than it is to hide Alexander murdering his friends, then slaughtering women and children when his male lover died. A historian might gloss over Caesar being cursed by Apollo, but its hard to erase the amount of blood Alexander unjustly spilled. Bear in mind, even the Ancient World had its athiests like Cicero, and as "non-warrior" as Cicero was, he still wanted to be seen as as successful warrior.

By the way, how much combat have you seen? You seem to be awfully quick to be an 'expert' on PTSD, and the ancient sufferers of it. Are you a medical professional or someone who has intimate knowledge of the ailment? Granted, none of this matters, I am just wondering how an expert on PTSD like yourself could be so blind to the reality that most people, much less famous soldiers and historians, don't like to talk about it.

And if you have seen combat, I wonder how much your reticence is attributable to some...things...that you yourself wouldn't publish in your own Commentaries.

Please do not use vulgar or insulting language, even if it's intended as rhetorical.
This forum has viewers of all ages, so keep the language family friendly.

The Mod team is reviewing the thread.
Suspensions will be imposed where appropriate.

 

[Faramir]

With the intrigues we will never know, Hephaestion's death hit Alexander hard. Now was it a Macedonian faction striking back at Alexander indirectly or a Persian one trying to weaken him?

On Parmenion just found this:

'However, Hephaestion’s loyalty to Alexander was best demonstrated during the would-be mutiny against Alexander. In 330 BCE Hephaestion, along with Craterus, spoke against Philotas, the suspected ringleader of the plot, convincing the king that he and the other conspirators should be tortured and executed – this execution also included Parmenio, Philotas’ father and the long-time commander from the court of Philip. Afterwards, Alexander rewarded Hephaestion by splitting the command of the Companions between him and Cleitus.'

Source:

Hephaestion: Alexander the Great's Personal Bodyguard and Closest Friend Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

Read about Hephaestion: Alexander the Great's Personal Bodyguard and Closest Friend at Brewminate. Explore insight, analysis, and history through original,

brewminate.com

 

[nuclearguy165]

With the intrigues we will never know, Hephaestion's death hit Alexander hard. Now was it a Macedonian faction striking back at Alexander indirectly or a Persian one trying to weaken him?

On Parmenion just found this:

'However, Hephaestion’s loyalty to Alexander was best demonstrated during the would-be mutiny against Alexander. In 330 BCE Hephaestion, along with Craterus, spoke against Philotas, the suspected ringleader of the plot, convincing the king that he and the other conspirators should be tortured and executed – this execution also included Parmenio, Philotas’ father and the long-time commander from the court of Philip. Afterwards, Alexander rewarded Hephaestion by splitting the command of the Companions between him and Cleitus.'

Source:

Hephaestion: Alexander the Great's Personal Bodyguard and Closest Friend Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

Read about Hephaestion: Alexander the Great's Personal Bodyguard and Closest Friend at Brewminate. Explore insight, analysis, and history through original,

brewminate.com

Fair enough on this in terms of more or less answering the Crateros question. Still, the more time goes on, the more I would have been worried about Crateros.

 

[tomar]

There was a reason and he found Parmenion's son was set up as a governor and Alexander became aware of disloyalty so had him killed as he could not afford someone like this in his rear able to work against him. Then of course what do you do with the father......

This sounds like a Stalinian approach.... There are options other than assassinating people you have a beef with for whatever reason

 

[tomar]

Again, it was fairly standard practice in the Makedonian court, before or after Alexander.
Since we really do not have a lot of info on how it really went down, the fact that after the assassination of Parmenion the soldiers he commanded just went about their day and didn't rise up probably means most people considered the actions justified.

I am not sure how "standard" it was (any time , any place)... This sort of behavior may instill fear, but is not conducive to loyalty or even simply initiative. This leads to an entourage of "yes men" and it is downhill from there.
Even the ultimate icon of evil, Mr Adolf, only went after those in his entourage who executed attempts on his life (or plotted them) with the exception of the night of the long knives

 

[tomar]

In 330 BCE Hephaestion, along with Craterus, spoke against Philotas, the suspected ringleader of the plot, convincing the king that he and the other conspirators should be tortured and executed ...

what a bunch of nice guys.....

 

[Pelagon]

normally that coz his ecstasy from cultural spread of greek culture Alexander deserved despise among his macedonian compatriots joint in war and rule, what eventually could revealed later also as assassination motive eg. fed up when some of the generals saw danger lurking from Alexander future plans i.e. more focus on the leafs than on the roots, many of them were longing for home including Parmenion, actually Philotas move to defend himself in martial court in greek instead macedonian pointed to another anomaly that the army became consisted later by more foreign than macedonian soldiers ...

but defacto plots were regular in every court and in this case could be executed by anyone when the king is far away from his own nest and surrounded by many strangers, also there could be variable that Alexander was despised by his narrow band coz had reach status of semi'god even tho they knew him as regular altho extraordinary warrior, above all knew that his victories rests on legacy of macedonian diplomacy and tactics that were standardized by his father Phillip and yet he didnt payed still the right amount of respect to that more and more selfcentering all the campaign as his achievement ...​

all assumptions that Alexo was blood thirsty lunatic are exaggeration if seen with anceint eyes in time where as someone said masculinity burst from all pores ~ I'll say worked in manner either You Kill or be killed, and in this respect Alexander was not at all quick on sword but tactician ~ so much that even maybe played chess as hobby simply his legacy indeed points to peace and cultural share compared to the earlier or later empires [1] altho the same is so short so we could say per'se that would be his later spiral of rule, yet the system he already imposed assured later not assimilation of the local cultures but shared thrive even not subjugating masses on macedonian costumes but overall aegean one among which the greek were more pronounced like culture and art, so from start he was indeed cosmopolith that was after true globalization (what again was earlier local trend of Phillip in his imperial birth) than authoritarian imposition of monoculturalism what eg. was trend among persian earlier or roman rule later, simply Macedonian Empire was carrying ideal that couldnt be reached even by many macedonians who most probably from ethnic envy plotted later against Alexander ...

 

[Olleus]

No one is arguing that Alexander is a nice guy by modern standards. Only that what he did was not far from the Macedonian norm of the time, as shown by the actions of either his father Philip before him, or the Diadochi after his death. Whether those are "good" or "bad" is entirely moot, what is relevant here is that him assassinating others is usual for his time and place. As such, there is no need to concoct theories about him having an abnormal mental state to explain his abnormal actions because the assassinations were not abnormal in the first place.

 

[tomar]

No one is arguing that Alexander is a nice guy by modern standards. Only that what he did was not far from the Macedonian norm of the time, as shown by the actions of either his father Philip before him, or the Diadochi after his death. Whether those are "good" or "bad" is entirely moot, what is relevant here is that him assassinating others is usual for his time and place. As such, there is no need to concoct theories about him having an abnormal mental state to explain his abnormal actions because the assassinations were not abnormal in the first place.

Perhaps... but first he is "the Great" so he is held to a higher standard ... And second one would have to look at frequency and quantity.... How frequently his father and other macedonian rulers used assassinations and how many did they have assassinated?... ( I do not know myself, but perhaps someone here has the data)
Of course even one assassination is bad, but it is one thing to have one alleger plotter gotten rid of, and quite another if one , a la Stalin, mows them by the hundreds....

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Perhaps... but first he is "the Great" so he is held to a higher standard ... And second one would have to look at frequency and quantity.... How frequently his father and other macedonian rulers used assassinations and how many did they have assassinated?... ( I do not know myself, but perhaps someone here has the data)
Of course even one assassination is bad, but it is one thing to have one alleger plotter gotten rid of, and quite another if one , a la Stalin, mows them by the hundreds....

Greatness isn't the same as goodness. People are called "the Great" because of the magnitude of their achievements, not because they were nice people.