Gcse ancient History
|
|  Yüklə 2.8 Mb.
|
2.4 Philip’s final years Although there were arguably sound dynastic reasons for it, Philip’s decision to take another young wife in 337 BC risked destabilising relationships within his own palace. Cleopatra was the niece of Attalus, a Macedonian of noble birth. According to one source, Satyrus, Philip ‘fell in love with her’. There had been other marriages, three of them before his marriage to Olympias, and two of the later ones served particular political purposes during campaigns. Although Philip never got the chance to begin his long-planned expedition against the Persians, he had already made extensive preparations for it after the decision was taken at the meeting of the League of Corinth in 338/7 BC. One purpose of the expedition was to cement Philip and Macedon at the centre of the Greek world. There was also the realistic prospect of success. An advanced force was organised and sent to Asia Minor in the spring of 336 BC, under the command of Parmenio and Attalus. It is likely that Attalus was sent out on the expedition to remove him from the court after the fiasco at Philip’s wedding to his niece Cleopatra, which led to Alexander and his mother leaving the court in 337 BC. Philip’s reconciliation with Alexander meant that, for the moment at least, Alexander was the heir presumptive. However we do not know how Philip planned to organise the Persian expedition; presumably he intended to take Alexander with him. However he had also to ensure that Macedonia was in safe hands while he was away; it is possible he intended to use Antipater in this role, as Alexander later did. Before that, he needed to make the state as stable as possible, so he used a political marriage between his own daughter Cleopatra and Alexander I of Epirus, brother of Olympias. The celebrations for this wedding were to be used by Philip to demonstrate his standing within the wider Greek world, but the assassination of the king changed the course of events. There has been much discussion about the murder of Philip and the extent to which it reflected a wider conspiracy against the king: some have suggested that Olympias or Alexander were behind it, though they are not the only potential suspects. Task 2E Read the account of the death of Philip given in Diodorus (16.91-94)
2.5 Alexander the King After the death of Philip, Alexander had to move quickly to secure his position as king. The recent history of the Macedonian royal family (see above) must have prepared him for this, and he had supporters ready to act on his behalf. To become king, he had to be accepted by the Macedonian army; but although this was important he had also to deal with potential problems. One of these was Attalus, uncle of Philip’s most recent wife, Cleopatra. Alexander quickly organised men to remove this potential threat and sent them to kill Attalus. As he was in Asia with the Macedonian forces under Parmenio, this must have been done with Parmenio’s agreement. The killing of Cleopatra and her child is attributed in the sources to Olympias. Alexander also moved quickly to secure his own status in the wider Greek world, as there was some unrest after Philip’s death. He made an expedition through central Greece, securing his position in the Amphictyonic League and also election as hegemon (leader) of the League of Corinth; he took his father’s place as leader of the proposed expedition against Persia. However a new Macedonian king had also to establish his position at home, and so Alexander was forced to campaign in 335 BC against the tribes to the north in Illyria and Thrace. This also helped reinforce Alexander’s position within the army, and demonstrated that he understood the potential of the army inherited from his father and had the ability to employ it effectively in combat. There were further problems in Greece, in which Athens and Thebes played an important role. The Athenian politician and orator Demosthenes tried to build a coalition against Alexander, and the Thebans were confident enough to turn on the Macedonian garrison established there in 338 BC after Chaeronea, perhaps expecting Alexander to be distracted by campaigns in the north for some time. However Alexander turned the tables effectively on the Thebans and took the city very quickly: he ordered the city to be razed to the ground, though he is reported to have preserved the house of the poet Pindar. This act of destruction undermined any chance of unity amongst the Greeks, who swiftly returned to obedience. (Further details can be found in Plutarch Alexander 11-14.) 2.6 Alexander’s relationships with members of his court From his childhood, Alexander was surrounded by important members of the Macedonian aristocracy. Those who were important under Philip and continued to play significant roles during the reign of Alexander include Parmenio and Antipater. Antipater (c397-319 BC) was appointed by Philip in 342 BC to oversee Macedon while he campaigned in the north and he also represented the king at the meeting that year of the Amphictyonic League at Delphi. After Chaeronea in 338 BC he was entrusted with negotiations in Athens. Even more importantly, he had a good relationship with Olympias, and so was well-placed to offer Alexander effective support after the assassination of Philip. When Alexander departed for Asia, he was left as regent in his place, and continued in this role until Alexander’s death in 323 BC. During this time he had to deal with the threat posed by Memnon’s Persian fleet in the Aegean, though that came to nothing after the death of Memnon at Mytilene in 333 BC. The Thracians caused problems in 332 BC, and, a little later, Agis III of Sparta, with the help of Persian money, tried to break Macedonian control of the Peloponnese that had left the Spartans effectively sidelined. Together with the Achaeans, Arcadians and the state of Elis, the Spartans put the city of Megalopolis under siege in 331 BC, and Antipater was forced to make a treaty with the Thracians so he could deal with the problems in the Peloponnese. In the spring of 330 BC, a decisive battle resulted in the death of Agis and the restoration of Macedonian control, though not without serious Macedonian losses. The relationship between Antipater and Olympias deteriorated over time, and in 324 BC Antipater was summoned to bring fresh troops to join Alexander, while Craterus was appointed regent in his place; however Alexander’s death allowed Antipater to stay in charge in Macedon, and in a strong position in the crisis that followed. Parmenio (c400 - 330 BC) was a successful general under Philip, defeating the Illyrians in 356 BC and closely involved in the development of the Macedonian army which enabled Macedon to emerge as the dominant power in Greece during Philip’s reign. In 336 BC, he was sent ahead to Asia with Amyntas and Attalus to prepare for Philip’s expedition against the Persians, leading a force of 10,000 men. On Alexander’s succession, he did not attempt to save Attalus from the anger of the young king, and remained a powerful force, becoming Alexander’s second in command, in command of the important left wing of the Macedonian forces in battle. In the sources he is often represented as the more cautious and traditional tactician; Alexander is recorded as rejecting his advice about the time to attack at the Battle of the Granicus, but accepting his advice at the Battle of Gaugamela. However his son Philotas, one of the younger group of Alexander’s companions, was caught up in the so-called ‘conspiracy of Philotas’ in 330 BC, and was condemned to death by the army. Alexander then dispatched trusted men to kill Parmenio, in case he retaliated to the death of his son. Alexander was brought up at court with Macedonians closer to his own age, many of whom became the companions on whom he relied for leadership in the army and for friendship. These were the sons of leading figures, such as Philotas, son of Parmenio. This childhood intimacy and the strong tradition of Macedonian free speech brought about some difficulties in the relationship between Alexander and his companions, especially as he began to adopt more openly foreign customs, such as wearing Persian clothes and introducing the obeisance. Two prominent figures in this group were Cleitus and Hephaestion. Cleitus (known as Cleitus the Black) (c375 – 328 BC) was some 20 years older than Alexander; his sister Lanike was Alexander’s nurse. He was commander of the Royal Squadron in battle, and dramatically saved Alexander’s life in the Battle of the Granicus, when Alexander was leading the charge against the Persian forces. Spithridates was about to strike Alexander who was fighting another Persian, Rhoesaces, but Cleitus cut off his arm. This incident was brought up by Cleitus during the drunken party which led to his death. Reorganisation of commands may have led him to feel he was being demoted within the companions at this point. Alexander’s extreme reaction to his own behaviour shows his close, if tempestuous, relationship with his companions, and the narrative provided in our sources suggests a close friendship. Hephaestion (c356-324 BC) was about the same age as Alexander and had an extremely close relationship with him. There is limited evidence for Hephaestion’s early years, though he may well have been at Mieza with Alexander, studying under Aristotle. There is even limited evidence for his involvement in the early stages of Alexander’s campaigns, though at Gaugamela he was ‘commander of the bodyguards’, according to Diodorus, which indicates he fought in battle beside Alexander, and Arrian tells us he received a wound. After the so-called ‘conspiracy of Philotas’ in 330 BC, he was made joint commander of the companion cavalry with Cleitus. Hephaestion was significantly involved in the rest of Alexander’s campaigns, and was eventually appointed Chiliarch, which shows the extent to which Alexander trusted and relied on him. His relationships with Craterus and Eumenes, Alexander’s secretaries, were more difficult (there are quarrels recorded in the sources), but the lack of information may reflect his early death. In the mass marriage ceremony at Susa in 324 BC, Hephaestion was married to Drypetis, daughter of Darius, whose sister, Stateira, married Alexander. This again underlines the close connection between the two men. Alexander’s extreme reaction to Hephaestion’s sudden death from a fever is discussed at length by our sources, and there is also considerable information about how he intended to enshrine Hephaestion’s memory. However after Alexander’s own death, these plans were set aside as the surviving companions tried to take control of all or part of Alexander’s conquests. 2.7 The character of Alexander It is difficult to make a final assessment of the character of Alexander. Although we have a considerable amount of material about the Macedonian king, we have little contemporary evidence. It is probable that the herm of Alexander originally found at Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli and now in the Louvre Museum can give us an idea of what he looked like. It is based on an original by the Greek sculptor Lysippus who ‘was the only sculptor Alexander judged worthy of portraying himself’ (Arrian 1.16). The accounts of his campaigns also enable us to understand his energy, particularly in warfare: his resilience, determination and courage are well documented. His judgment is more questionable: he was certainly decisive and intuitive in battle, but many historians have criticised the risks he took not only with the lives of his men but with his own. This was particularly important because he did not make provision for his own death: there was no clear succession and he had not followed Parmenio’s advice before the campaign began to father a successor. Events after his death showed how significant a problem this would prove to be. Picture source: Herm of Alexander from Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlexandreLouvre.jpg We can certainly form a judgment of the impact he had on his men. The aftermath of the mutiny at Opis shows the very strong feelings between the army and their king (Arrian 7.11). His relationship with his companions was more complex. He was very close to Hephaestion, and to many of the others; the Macedonian tradition of free speech in the presence of the king made relations with some companions more difficult, as shown by the events leading to the death of Cleitus (Arrian 4.8).
Task 2F Select passages from the sources you have studied to support the case for each of these descriptions. Many of the ancient writers emphasise the negative or positive sides of the picture. Arrian (7.30), for example, is largely positive, and is critical of those who focused only on Alexander’s faults: he thinks that someone who draws attention to these should remember that he ‘is himself a meaner person who has pursued trivial goals and not even achieved these.’ On the other hand, Cleitarchus was responsible for some of the negative stories to be found in the surviving sources about Alexander. He had access to eye witness accounts for some at least of what he wrote, and he preserves important details; however his interpretation of Alexander’s actions is equally open to question. Task 2G Present a critical discussion of the following assessment of Alexander, selecting three or four incidents from Alexander’s life to support your case. If Alexander made mistakes through haste or anger, or if he was led on to act in a barbarian and rather arrogant manner, for my part, I do not consider these serious faults, if one considers reasonably Alexander’s youth and his continual success and the nature of such men as associate, and will always associate, with kings to please them, not for the best of motives, but for evil. I know that the remorse he showed when he had done wrong because of the nobility of his nature was unparalleled amongst the kings of old. Arrian 7.29 It may be helpful to make a list of significant events from Alexander’s life and contrast the different interpretations that can be made of it. There may be a variety of possible interpretations possible. Example:
2.8 The death of Alexander We have two accounts of the death of Alexander to consider in detail. Task 2H Read the accounts of the death of Alexander given by Plutarch (Alexander 73-77) and Arrian (7.24-26)
There has been considerable speculation over the years about the cause of Alexander’s death. Years of campaigning must have taken its toll, together with the hardships of the journeys he undertook, such as the disastrous march through the Gedrosian Desert on his return from India: he had also received near fatal wounds on several occasions, as he himself told the troops at the time of the mutiny at Opis (Arrian 7.10). There are also references in the sources to prolonged drinking bouts, which certainly played a part in the death of Cleitus, though Arrian (7.29) considers Alexander’s drinking not to be significant: As Aristobulus says, his drinking bouts were not long because of the wine, as Alexander drank little wine, but because of his friendship with his companions. Plutarch (Alexander 77) discusses the idea that the king was poisoned, which he says the majority of historians dismiss. Neither Arrian nor Diodorus support the case for poisoning, and the historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the length of time Alexander was ill is a strong argument against the use of poison. 2.9 The Successors of Alexander: Alexander’s body The death of Alexander precipitated a crisis within the Macedonian elite. His only gesture towards appointing a successor as he lay ill was the handing of his signet ring to Perdiccas. As his body ‘lay unattended in a stifling hot place’ (Plutarch, Alexander 77), some of his companions began to manoeuvre themselves into positions to secure some or all of Alexander’s conquests for themselves. In the immediate aftermath, there were a number of principal contenders and there was the threat of a split between the members of the elite officer class and the infantry, who remained loyal to the royal house of Macedon and demanded that Arrhidaeus, an older half-brother of Alexander, be named as king, despite his apparent mental weakness. A compromise was reached whereby Arrhidaeus was renamed Philip and accepted by the army as king (jointly with the as yet unborn child of Roxane, Alexander’s wife), with Perdiccas as regent. Antipater and Craterus were also prominent in the new arrangements. This agreement was reached in the presence of Alexander’s dead body. The army were given the opportunity to hear and reject Alexander’s plans for further expansion of the empire and major building projects in honour of the gods, his father Philip and Hephaestion (Diodorus 18.4). It is very possible that these so-called plans were exaggerated by Perdiccas or others to ensure that they would be rejected by the rank and file of the army. Although Perdiccas emerged as the most powerful figure in Babylon, there were other important figures whose views about the future would be important. Antipater remained in Macedonia with a powerful army; Craterus had been sent to replace with him by Alexander but was in Cilicia with some 10000 veterans; there was also Antigonus One-Eye at Celaenae. Within a few months, Roxane gave birth to a strong male child, who was acclaimed by the army as Alexander IV. In a relatively short time, the empire created by the will of one man began to fragment. One question that had to be settled was what to do with the body of Alexander. It was agreed by the Macdonian leadership at Babylon that he should be embalmed and then taken to Ammon’s sanctuary at Siwah to be buried. However by the time the arrangements for transporting the dead king in due pomp were completed two years later, Perdiccas tried to get the body transported to Macedonia so that Alexander could be buried in the traditional resting place of Macedonian kings at Aegae. However Ptolemy managed to intercept the funeral cortege at Damascus, and took the king’s body back to Egypt. He first buried him at Memphis and then installed him in a magnificent tomb in Alexandria. The importance of Alexander to his successors is clear from the way their service with him is regularly used to strengthen their claim to authority. Coins continued to be issued with Alexander’s name on them after his death; Ptolemy was the first to introduce new coins, showing Alexander wearing an elephant scalp headdress together with the ram’s horns of Ammon; much later, he issued coins as king with his own portrait on one side and Alexander on a chariot drawn by elephants on the other. Seleucus followed very much the same pattern in Babylon. Lysimachus, originally awarded the satrapy of Thrace, managed to profit from the fighting in the years after Alexander’s death, and gained control of Asia Minor; he too struck coins with Alexander’s image. Ptolemy’s coinage Picture Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PtolemyCoinWithAlexanderWearingElephantScalp.jpg Lysimachus’ coinage Picture Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LysimachusCoinWithHornedAlexander.jpg 2.10 The deification of Alexander Alexander was brought up to believe himself descended from Heracles, and so a descendant of Zeus. However his attitude towards deification is more problematic. Plutarch (28) believes he used divine status as a political tool to ensure control of his new territories, though it is clear from the sources that this resulted in some tensions within the Macedonian leadership, as shown by Cleitus, Callisthenes and the so-called ‘Pages’ Conspiracy’. The attempt to introduce the obeisance can be interpreted as a desire for recognition of his divine status, though it may also reflect the desire to integrate Persians and Macedonians within the court. In the final years of his life, it is recorded that Alexander asked for divine honours from the Greeks, together with a hero-cult for Hephaestion. There is also evidence going back to Ephippus, who wrote a pamphlet on the death of Alexander, that Alexander would dress up as Ammon and other gods such as Artemis and Hermes; this may be mere play-acting at parties. There were some cults established in Asia Minor, and some lasted a long time; one was in the city of Alexandria, where Alexander’s body was finally conveyed by Ptolemy; another at Ephesus. Greece was less enthusiastic, though there are references to discussions in both Sparta and Athens about divine honours for the ‘son of Ammon’; this suggests that Alexander was indeed seeking some recognition of his ‘divine status’. Further discussion of this question can be found at: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z3.html Theme: Alexander’s Campaigns 3.1 The Persian Empire at the time of Alexander’s accession The Achaemenid Empire was still very powerful when Alexander came to the throne, though in recent years there had been turmoil after a long period of stability. Towards the end of the fifth century BC, Artaxerxes II (404-358 BC) came to the throne at a difficult time; Egypt was no longer part of the empire and an attempt to recover it in 373 BC failed. However he engaged in a range of building projects and moved the capital of the empire back to Persepolis. In the Peace of Antalcidas (also known as the King’s Peace) in 387 BC, Artaxerxes regained control of the coastal cities of the Aegean coast. On the death of the king, his son Artaxerxes III (358-338 BC) took over control of the empire, eliminating competition by assassinating a number of his close relatives. One significant achievement was the re-establishment of Persian control of Egypt, which once again became a Persian satrapy in 343 BC. The Persians offered significant aid to opponents of Philip: in 340 BC forces were sent to support Cersobleptes, a Thracian ruler, and, more successfully, the city of Perinthus which was able to withstand a siege by Philip’s forces. Artaxerxes III died in 338 BC, either of natural causes (cuneiform tablet in the British Museum BM 71537) or, according to Diodorus Siculus, poisoned by the successful eunuch Bagoas. He was succeeded by the young Artaxerxes IV (338-336 BC), who almost at once had to face two revolts in Egypt and Babylon, as well as the threat posed by the advance guard of Philip’s forces under Parmenio. Internal disagreements within the leading Persian families led to pressure on Bagoas’ position, who responded by killing the king. In his place Darius III was appointed king; he ordered the execution of Bagoas. |