The Death of Phillip II of Macedon

[Soldier of Macedon]

What do those interested think about the circumstances surrounding the death of this great king of Macedonia?

We know that Pausanias was the ultimate murderer, but who were the plotters.

Was it the Persians?

Greeks?

Olympia?

Alexander?

A combination of some and/or all?

[osiris]

what do you think mate, i would venture to say you have read more on this subject than any of us and would have the most informed view. i am inclined to think because the killer was killed straight away there was a conspiracy behind it, but beyond that in the immortal words of sculttz, i know nothing.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The common story of Pausanias being his 'lover' and taking action against Phillip II due to the latter unwilling to avenge him for the wrongs done to him by Attalus is well known. Pausanias was murdered as he tried to escape, meaning there could be no confession (wether forced or otherwise), this immediately throws the idea of a conspiracy into the mix. While there can be no doubt that Alexander would have been viewed as a suspect by default due to his mother's hatred for her husband, down the track Alexander would blame Persia's Darius for financing the murder of his father. This may or may not have been used as a smoke-screen to cover his mother's apparent complicity, but it was certainly used as another pretext for the Macedonians to do battle against the enemy of the east.

The words of those who have written on the subject of Phillip and Alexander give conflicting and at times grey views about the matter. For example, Arrian, a Greek, who is considered to be one of the top biographers of Alexander, seems to avoid the matter almost completely, and his story about Phillip's death is limited to a very modest sentence, Phillip of Macedon died when Pythodelus was archon at Athens. He takes the same approach towards the event at Chaeronea, where he refers to it as the defeat at Chaeronea, no doubt to increase the image of 'unity' among Macedonians and Greeks (although he himself cannot avoid stating the obvious in latter passages, such as the old racial rivalry between the two foes). Of course, the Macedonians won a great victory at Chaeronea and the only people that suffered defeat were the Greeks. Arrian largely focuses more on Macedonian history post-Phillip II.

Curtius Rufus gives the following account:

When Pythodelus was archon at Athens, Phillip, son of Amyntas, was murdered by Pausanias, a member of his bodyguard. Pausanias was pursued and executed and, when Alexander succeeded to the throne, he punished the sons of Aeropus, Arrhabaeus and Heromenes, for complicity in the plot against his father; their brother Alexander Lyncestes was spared, ostensibly because he had been in the first to hail his namesake as the new king, but, in reality, because he was Antipater's son-in-law.

Plutarch writes:

Not long afterwards a Macedonian named Pausanias assasinated the king: he did this because he had been humiliated by Attalus (translators footnote: 8 years prior) and Cleopatra and could get no redress from Phillip. It was Olympias who was chiefly blamed for the assasination, because she was believed to have encouraged the young man and incited him to take his revenge. It was said that when Pausanias met the young prince and complained to him of the injustice he had suffered, Alexander quoted the verse from Euripides' Medea, in which Medea is said to threaten - The father, bride and bridegroom all at once. However this may be, he took care to track down and punish those who were involved in the plot, and he showed his anger against Olympias for the horrible revenge which she took upon Cleopatra during his absence.

Peter Green cites Plutarch and Justin when placing the blame on Olympias, she is the one that,

arranged for the horses to be ready for the assassin, so that he could make a quick get-away. Her subsequent behaviour, indeed, suggests that she not only planned her husband's death but openly glorified in it - perhaps as a means of diverting suspicion from Alexander himself, who, after all, stood to gain more by Pausanias' action than anyone. The murderer's corpse was nailed to a public gibbet, and that very same night Olympias placed a gold crown on its head. A few days later she had the body taken down, burnt it over Phillip's ashes, and buried it in a nearby grave. Every year she poured libations there on the anniversary of the murder. She obtained the sword which Pausanias had used, and dedicated it to Apollo - under her maiden name Myrtale. No one, at the time, dared voice a breath of criticism.

Evidently, not even Alexander, as he was no longer in Macedonia to keep track of what his mother was getting up to.

There are of course other opinions and elaborations, personally, I think (and hope) that Alexander was not involved, and that his 'guilt by association' is due solely to his relationship with his mother, which seemed odd and at times somewhat disturbed itself. My guess is Olympias saw an opportunity in Pausanias' emotional state and took advantage. Once queen mother, nobody would dare question her anyway. She mentally scarred the young Alexander, and deep down he probably never forgave her for the murder of his father, which could be the reason why, once departed from Macedonia, never made an attempt to see her or have her invited to wherever he was again.

[osiris]

thanks mate i thoroughly enjoyed that read .

[Soldier of Macedon]

No worries mate, Phillip II has always been one of my favourite Macedonian figures throughout history, so anything about his life is of value and interest to me.

[Spartan]

I wouldnt rule out Alexander being in on it.
He had the most to gain by the death of his father.
To this day, in murder cases, the first thing the detectives look at is who benefits most from a murder.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I wouldnt rule out Alexander being in on it.
He had the most to gain by the death of his father.
To this day, in murder cases, the first thing the detectives look at is who benefits most from a murder.

It can't be ruled out, of course.

But I think Olympias had more to gain in the immediate time than Alexander, she was still sort of semi-exiled at the time of the murder and with Phillip gone she could manipulate the Macedonian royal court and scene in general as she pleased. While Phillip did take a subsequent wife of Macedonian blood, it does not confirm that Alexander would be second preference afterwards. For all of the bitter animosity between father and son, a problem largely fuelled by Olympias, there can be no doubt that both Phillip and Alexander admired, respected and loved each other, even though they did not often show it, certain events do confirm this such as the purchase of Bucephalas, Alexander taking charge of military units and being placed in command of Macedonia at a young age during Phillip's absence, etc. Again though, there were those moments of Alexander's perceived 'divinity' which led him away from his father's origins and into the delusional idea (again from his mother) that he is Zeus' son.

Who knows what would have eventuated if both Phillip and Alexander went to Asia together, who knows what they could have achieved. More? Less? Interesting questions either way.

[Spartan]

It can't be ruled out, of course.

But I think Olympias had more to gain in the immediate time than Alexander, she was still sort of semi-exiled at the time of the murder and with Phillip gone she could manipulate the Macedonian royal court and scene in general as she pleased.

Agreed
Olympias may have been the 'mastermind' behind the whole thing.

Who knows what would have eventuated in both Phillip and Alexander went to Asia together, who knows what they could have achieved. More? Less? Interesting questions either way.

Very interesting to say the least
In my opinion they would have accomplished less.
How on earth could they possibly accomplish more!!
If Alexander had to run every plan by Philip, history would have unfolded differently.
Although Philip was a great man, Alexander was greater imo...

[Soldier of Macedon]

How on earth could they possibly accomplish more!!

Eastern Ocean, then the Americas and Australia, lol.

If Alexander had to run every plan by Philip, history would have unfolded differently.

Maybe the expedition would have been more efficient and the empire more consolidated. Who knows.

As a world figure of course Alexander is greater but Phillip did not live long enough to test himself in this respect. You have to keep in mind that Phillip is credited with creating the first professional and stardardised army and innovative military tactics unknown at the time, he is known as a revolutionary thinker and strategist, the greatest general Europe has produced, and other such references. Phillip made this, Alexander inherited it.

Speaking for internal matters regarding the Macedonian state and people, I would say that Phillip was the greater man. Alexander's visions went well beyond Macedonia, he was an international man.

[Spartan]

SoM

A Spartan measures a mans worth by his ability on the battlefield, lol
In this respect , Alexander is unrivaled in my opinion, except by maybe one man.
But I would agree that Philip was the better 'statesman/politician'...

Eastern Ocean, then the Americas and Australia, lol.

Hahaha, nice one!
All I know is he could have gone to the ends of the Earth and his messengers would still give him news of uprisings and rebellions in Sparti

[Soldier of Macedon]

Most people in Greece rejoiced at Alexander's death, this is a fact.

We didn't bother with Sparta, we didn't have a requirement for a stone quarry at the time

[Spartan]

You know SoM , that the Macedonians didnt conquer Sparta is a common misconception.
Initially Alexander did leave the Spartans be (like you said, why risk your men for the aquisition of a stone quarry). However, once he was out of Greece on his campaigns, the Spartans did nothing but cause trouble by starting rebellions and uprisings in the conquered city states. At one point, the Spartan king(Ceomenes i think) had almost re-conquered the whole Pelloponesse!
When Alexander caught wind of this, he sent a message to Antipater or Antigonus(not sure which one) who was left in charge of Greece while he was gone to take out the Spartans. A battle ensued and the Spartans suffered one of their few defeats. A Macedonian Garrison was placed in Sparta to keep an eye on them. Now the Spartans werent 'conquered' as the other city-states where, but the Macedonians kept a close eye on them after that.
I have read a passage(I will try to find it) where Alexander, after he hears of the Spartan defeat, he says something like- "while a battle of lions is being fought for Asia, a battle of mice is happening in Greece". Supposedly he was bitter that he did not gain the glory for himself of defeating such a prestigious foe, that he downplayed his generals victory.
The Spartans, in Spartan fashion, did nothing but rebel until the time of Alexanders death and beyond...
There are some interesting Macedonian -Spartan relations from Philip and Alexanders time, I can dig some up if anyone is interested.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Very interested, dig them up and post them here when you get a chance. I have heard of that quote about the mice and lions before and about some kind of conflict, but I don't recall who wrote it or what the particulars were. Given the distance from Macedonia and their fighting spirit, the Spartans could rebel easier than the rest of the Greeks, I would like to know more about this Macedonian garrison also if I could.

Hey, by the way, nice signature.

[Spartan]

Thanks buddy
Heres another one off the top of my head-

Philip, before his victory at Chaeronea sent a message to the Spartans asking for their compliance to his cause.
The Spartans, in their typical laconic fashion sent back a one word message- "No"

Philip responded that after he conquered the rest of Greece, he would raze Sparta to the ground if they didnt agree.
Again, the Spartans sent back a one word message- "IF"

The term 'laconic' comes from the abrupt, to the point manner in which the ancient Spartans spoke. They didnt waste words, lol.
Anyays,
We ended up losing that one, but I am content in the fact that the Spartans remained relatively 'free' in comparison to the other city states(Thebes and Athens for example) who were their enemies...

Ill try and find this on the net so I can source it, and others as well...

For starters though, google the "battle of Sellasia", very interesting

[Spartan]

They elected Philip hegemon, and thus the age of independent Greek city states ended. Only Sparta remained independent. They did not come to the aid of the other city states, and Philip decided to leave them alone so long as they made no move against him. One story tells that Philip sent a message to the Spartans saying, "If I enter Laconia, I will level Sparta to the ground." The reply from the Spartans was only one word, "If."

http://www.humanitiesprogram.com/?q=E1_Philip

Even after the decline of Sparta as a regional power, it still necessitated
respect. The father of “Alexander the Great”, Philip II, sent a message to Sparta
saying "If I enter Laconia, I will level Sparta to the ground", the Spartans
responded with a single, brief reply: "If". Philip of Macedon created a league of
the Greeks on the pretext of unifying Greece for an invasion of Persia. The
Spartans were excluded from the league because Philip understood the risk of
attempting to pressure by use of force Laconia to fight with his army.

http://www.spartanwarfighters.net/3mid/4history/history.htm

Here is an interesting comparison-

Macedonia, at the northerly extreme of mainland Greece, has much in common with Sparta in the far south. As monarchies, both are exceptions among Greek states. In each the king leads his troops into battle; both have formidable armies. But Macedonia, a much younger state, is better equipped to conquer and unite the multiple city-states of Greece.
A Macedonian king, if a capable soldier, is more free than his Spartan counterpart to follow up his successes. Sparta is a characteristic Greek city-state in that there are democratic checks on the ruler. Macedonia, by contrast, is like a feudal society. The king and his warrior nobles, known as his 'companions', do what they please

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac49

It seems I have made a mistake, Sparta was defeated by the Macedonians long after the death of Alexander, not while he was away.

Sparta on the other hand, under the leadership of Cleomenes III who was unable to sit still, initiated a number of social reforms. Sparta's northern neighbours, the Achaean League, however, feared that a reformed Sparta would pose a threat to the League's dominance and took action against it. Unable to negotiate a suitable settlement, the Leagues turned to Antigonus for help. To entice him to intervene, the League offered him Acrocorinth, a strategically valuable place. Antigonus graciously accepted and with twenty thousand troops confronted Cleomenes. The mere sight of the Macedonian army marching down the Peloponnisos must have given Cleomenes's allies cold feet because they quickly withdrew leaving Cleomenes on his own.
As it turned out, Cleomenes's soldiers were mostly hired mercenaries paid for with Ptolemy's money. Ptolemy, as usual, was the instigator of these intrigues never missing an opportunity to expand his own influence. When Antigonus found this out he quickly gave Ptolemy what he wanted, territorial concessions in Asia Minor, and in exchange Ptolemy removed his support for Cleomenes. Without Ptolemy's financial support, Cleomenes lost his influence and decided to stake everything on the outcome of a single battle. In 222 BC, in Sellacia about 120 kilometers north of Sparta, Cleomenes engaged the Macedonians and lost. From there he fled to Egypt. Antigonus, meanwhile, triumphantly walked on Spartan soil as the first foreign conqueror to do so in a long time.
Victorious, Antigonus reconstituted the Hellenic League of Philip II with himself as hegemon and placed Macedonian garrisons in Acrocorinth and Orchomenos. He also left a senior Macedonian officer in charge of Peloponnesian affairs. Sparta's bid for freedom was not only lost but Sparta herself was now forced into a new confederacy with her former enemies the Achaeans, Thessalians, Epiriotes, Acarnanians, Boeotians, Phocians and worst of all, she came under Macedonian control.