4. The Pixodarus affair
Plutarch is the only source noting a serious conflict between Philip and
Alexander caused by a diplomatic offer made by Pixodarus, the satrap of
Caria and Lycia. This last male member of the Hecatomnid dynasty
wanted an alliance with the Macedonian king which would most probably
have implied greater autonomy or even complete independence from
Persia. The offer was to arrange for a marriage between Philip’s son
Arrhidaeus and Pixodarus’ oldest daughter, Ada II – she is called Ada II to
distinguish her from Pixodarus’ sister Ada I, whom he overthrew as satrap
in 341/340. With these diplomatic negotiations underway Alexander’s
mother, Olympias, as well as some of his friends started to fear that this
was a sign of Philip’s intention of now making Arrhidaeus his heir. They
therefore persuaded Alexander to act. Through the mediation of the actor
Thettalus, Alexander suggested to Pixodarus that he should marry his
daughter. When Philip discovered this, he went to Alexander’s quarters
52 Diod., 17.7; Arr., An. , 1.17.11; Polyaen., 5.44.4-5; Just., 9.5.8-9. Parke 1993, pp.
178-179; Cawkwell 1978, p. 177; Errington 1990, p. 104; Hammond 1994, pp.
168-170; Briant 1996, pp. 837-838; Ashley 1998, pp. 160-162; Debord 1999, pp.
423-426.
74
Chapter II
accompanied by Parmenion’s son Philotas. There Philip berated Alexander
for besmirching his good name and wishing to associate himself with the
daughter of ‘a Carian, a barbarian ruler’s slave’. In addition to this the
king now expelled from Macedonia Harpalus, Nearchus, Erigyios and
Ptolemy. The king had most probably himself nominated them to be
Alexander’s advisers but at a critical moment it turned out they had given
the heir erroneous counsels, that is, ones contrary to the king’s intentions.
The four men were recalled from exile immediately after Alexander’s
ascension to the throne and accompanied him on his expedition as
members of his closest circle of friends. With his Macedonian matrimonial
plans foiled, Pixodarus remained loyal to the Great King and gave his
daughter in marriage to the Iranian aristocrat Orontobates. After
Pixodarus’s death, Darius III nominated Orontobates his father-in-law’s
successor as satrap of Caria and Lycia.53
Even if Plutarch is our single source, this story is plausible as it
contains elements that were typical for Philip’s practice of using marriage
as means of gaining temporary goals. What does need to be reviewed,
however, is the traditional dating of the Pixodarus affair to have happened
in the spring of 336. Although in his biography of Alexander Plutarch
describes this incident after the far more serious conflict at Cleopatra’s
wedding, this does not mean the events really followed each other in that
chronological order. Evidence that this was not so is the presence of
Olympias in the Pixodarus affair though she was not in Macedonia in the
period between Cleopatra’s wedding and Philip’s death. Moreover, the
uncompleted marriage arrangements conducted in parallel with other
negotiations must have lasted some time. The most probable year would
have been 337, when Philip was searching for allies in Asia Minor for his
war against Persia and when the chaos following the death of Artaxerxes
III could have inclined Pixodarus to search for alternatives to remaining
loyal to the Persian monarchy.54
This affair is the first recorded symptom of tension between Alexander
and Philip, which exploded into a violent conflict at the time of the king’s
last marriage. It is curious how easily Alexander allowed himself to be
convinced that Arrhidaeus could become a serious rival to the throne, even
though objectively speaking no such danger existed. Alexander’s mentally
retarded half-brother was able to ride a horse, participate in the offering of
53 Plu., Alex. , 10.1-4; Str., 14.2.17. Debord 1999, p. 59. On Alexander’s friends see
Heckel 1992, pp. 205-208.
54 Bosworth 1988, pp. 21-22; Develin 1981, p. 95; Ruzicka 1992, p. 101. The story
is put in doubt by: Hatzopoulos 1982; Hammond 1996, p. 27; Debord 1999, pp.
59-62; Corvisier 2002, pp. 267-268.
The Heir to the Throne
75
sacrifices and other ceremonies, such as sitting passively on the throne if
nothing else was required of him. This, however, was probably the most
he was able to do and thus the sources do not mention anything he ever did
independently. Later, after his ascension, it became clear that Alexander
saw no danger from his half brother because he spared him his life even
though Arrhidaeus was the only other remaining male member of Argead
dynasty. It would appear that for reason the atmosphere at the Macedonian
court in 337 inclined Alexander to feel very insecure as heir to the throne,
so much so that he could have behaved irrationally.55 Perhaps the failed
attempt at getting a wife for Arrhidaeus, marrying off one of Philip’s
daughters to Amyntas IV and the not much later last marriage of Philip
were giving Alexander and Olympias an impression of Philip’s designs to
isolate them at the court.56
5. Cleopatra’s wedding
In 337, shortly after his return from Corinth, Philip married for a seventh
time. On this occasion the bride was a Macedonian by the name of
Cleopatra – though Arrian called her Eurydice – the niece of Attalus, the
one who later on together with his father-in-law, Parmenion, headed the
first Macedonian expeditionary force into Asia Minor. The sources relate
this marriage in the context of growing tensions between Alexander and
Philip, exacerbated by Olympias, who is usually portrayed as an ill-willed
and quarrelsome woman. During the wedding feast there occurred an
incident that created serious rift within Argead dynasty and the
consequences almost led to an important international conflict. The
Alexander Romance includes an anecdote that on entering the banqueting
hall Alexander promised his father to invite him to his mother’s wedding
when he, Alexander, would give her away to another king. From then on it
only got worse. An essential part of all Macedonian feasts was the
drinking of vast quantities of undiluted wine, which inevitably led to
inebriation. It was in such a state that Attalus raised a toast wishing the
newly weds to produce future kings that were pure blooded and legitimate
heirs. Alexander was never so drunk as not to notice even an imagined
insult let alone one that was real. No doubt expressing the secret opinions
of much of the Macedonian aristocracy, Attalus was referring to
Alexander’s mother’s foreign origins and, what was less obvious, to the
presumed fact that she was an adulteress. A livid Alexander shouted out
55 Badian 1963; Bosworth 1988, p. 22; Carney 2001, pp. 65-80.
56 Weber 2009, p. 86.
76
Chapter II
‘But what of me, base wretch? Dost thou take me for a bastard?’ and next
hurled his goblet at Attalus, who responded by throwing his cup at
Alexander. Apart from the markedly unrelia
ble Alexander Romance, none
of the other sources claim that any of the missiles hit their intended targets.
We may assume that Attalus at least missed for Philip abruptly rose with
drawn sword in defence of the former’s honour. The king fortunately did
no one any harm for according to Plutarch and the Alexander Romance
anger and the surfeit of alcohol had denied him control of his legs: the
manoeuvre just ended with him falling flat on his face. Alexander is
reported to have then mockingly remarked: ‘Look now, men! here is one
who was preparing to cross from Europe to Asia; and he is upset in trying
to cross from couch to couch.’ Justin presents a less spectacular version of
this incident in which the king was physically restrained from killing his
son and heir by friends. Whichever way it happened, the consequence was
that Alexander and Olympias immediately left Pella and headed for Epirus
to the court of Olympias’s brother Alexander. The heir to the throne next
travelled to an Illyrian kingdom that the sources fail to name.57
Modern historians have for a long time been trying to politically
interpret these events. For a while credence was given to Justin’s statement
that Philip’s marriage took place after he had divorced Olympias. Such a
version of events suited both Roman and later European views on
marriage in civilised societies, i.e. that it ought to be monogamous.
However, save for the unreliable Alexander Romance, this version is
contradicted by all the other sources. The authors of these two later works
did not realise that Argead views on marriage were quite different from
those associated with civilised behaviour in their day and age. Meanwhile
if only the aforementioned passage from Satyrus suggests that Philip had
throughout his adult life more than one wife and that perhaps polygamy
was traditional in Macedonia’s ruling dynasty. Olympias was not Philip’s
first wife and she had had younger women vying for the king’s attention
before, but such rivalries had not previously led to conflicts, at least not
ones to be mentioned in the sources. Therefore neither sexual jealousy nor
the fact that Philip had married yet another woman while he was at least
still formally the husband of Olympias could have been the reason for the
rift in the royal family.58
As far as is known, the Macedonian court differed from polygamous
courts in the East in that there was no formal hierarchy among the
57 Plu., Alex. , 9.5-11; Arr., An. , 3.6.5; Paus., 8.7.7; Just., 9.7.2-6; Satyr., F25 ap.
Ath., 13.5; Ps.-Callisth., 1.20-21. Excessive wine drinking: Ephippus, ap. Ath.,
3.91. On the name of Philip’s new wife see Badian 1982a.
58 Carney 1987; Greenwalt 1989; Ogden 1999, pp. xiv-xvi; Carney 2006, pp. 22-26.
The Heir to the Throne
77
monarch’s wives with no official first wife. In practice, however, the
mother of the successor to the throne became the most important wife of
the king. At a relatively early stage it had become apparent that Alexander
was the designated heir. Indeed, it was Alexander who had been provided
with an expensive education under Aristotle’s instruction, it was he who
already as a child had received foreign envoys and as a teenager had
governed as regent. Besides, he had no competition for in 337 Philip’s
only other son was the mentally retarded Arrhidaeus. Arrhidaeus’s
disability had become apparent no later than in his school age and
therefore he could not have been seriously considered as a successor at
least since then. Justin claims that after Philip’s death Alexander murdered
a brother called Caranus but we cannot even be certain that Caranus ever
existed. He is not included in the list of Philip’s descendants compiled by
Satyrus from all the sources known to him. Moreover, Justin says that
Caranus was the son of Philip and Cleopatra. Thus if Pompeius Trogus or
his epitomiser Justin had not simply invented Caranus, he would have
naturally been born after the wedding incident. If we accept anthropological
findings regarding states with a polygamous ruling family, we can assume
that Macedonia lacked a clear and codified procedure for succession to the
throne. We only know that the successor had to be a member of the
Argead family. Unless the throne was taken over as the result of a coup,
which indeed happened all too often, the successor was usually a son the
deceased king had nominated to be his heir, though not necessarily the
eldest son. While Alexander was the only known heir, his position and that
of his mother Olympias were secure. All this could now change. Philip
was still only 45 or 46 years old and could well have occupied the throne
for another 20 years or more. Therefore if Cleopatra bore him a son and if
Philip so wished, nothing could stop him from nominating this younger
son to be his heir instead of Alexander. Worse still, Olympias was an
Epirote whereas Cleopatra was a Macedonian. That the matter of the
successor’s nationality was important to many among the aristocracy is
quite apparent in what Attalus said at the wedding feast. Therefore it is
easy to understand why this particular marriage was so worrying to
Olympias and her son.59
aspect of his internal policy. By marrying a Lower Macedonian aristocrat
whose uncle and guardian was the apparently influential Attalus the king
59 Badian 1963, p. 246; Hatzopoulos 1986; Carney 1987, pp. 37-48; Greenwalt
1989; Ogden 1999, pp. 3-4, 18-19, 24; Mirón 2000, pp. 39-44; Carney 2006, pp.
32-36. The case of Caranus: Just., 11.2.3, 9.3.7; Satyr., ap. Ath., 13.5; Heckel 1979;
Unz 1985; Carney 2000, p. 77.
78
Chapter II
intended to strengthen his ties with the Macedonian elite. This thesis,
though popular in modern historiography, lacks substantiation in ancient
sources. We know nothing about the origins of Attalus and Cleopatra. It is
only from our general knowledge of Macedonian society that we can
assume they were aristocrats. However, this does not entitle us to
speculate as to their exact position within Macedonian society. Events
following Philip’s death and the ease with which Attalus was removed
from any position of authority indicate that this aristocrat was far less
powerful than has been commonly assumed. Moreover, Satyrus’
biography of Philip cited by Athenaeus and Plutarch clearly state that the
king married Cleopatra out of love. The moralist Plutarch adds that Philip
fell in love with her despite his senior age. It is hard not get the impression
that such unequivocal information from the sources is simply being
ignored by supporters of the theory that Philip’s marriage to Cleopatra had
an essentially political objective,60 and that this stems from the opinion
that Philip (as perhaps all outstanding political figures) was always
rational, weighing up every single decision in terms of profit or loss. Yet
with the lack of any powerful arguments to dismiss the information
provided by Plutarch and Satyrus it is more sensible to accept it. It wou
ld
not have been the first or the last time a middle-aged man lost all common
sense and fell in love with a woman young enough to be his daughter.61
Accepting hypothetically that the motive was love, not political calculation,
most certainly does not imply the situation was any less worrying to
Olympias and Alexander. After all, if the king was able to take such an
extraordinary step as allowing his emotions to decide on yet another
marriage, one could expect anything of such a man.
The falling out between Philip and Alexander did not last long.
Ultimately Alexander was still the only heir to the Macedonian throne and
a very competent one at that. Philip was certainly aware of the fact that the
outburst of rage he had provoked and his son’s departure for Illyria did not
serve the Macedonian state. Experiences from the earlier history of the
Argead dynasty showed that quarrels between a monarch and family
members often led to the emergence of pretenders to his throne. That is
why Philip willingly accepted the excuses provided by the trusted hetairos
Demaratus of Corinth and through his mediation got Alexander to return
to Macedonia. A similar reconciliation with Olympias was out of the
question. Besides, she was at the time actually trying to persuade her
60 E.g. Hamilton 1965, pp. 120-121; Hamilton 1999, p. 24; Green 1974, pp. 88-91;
Corvisier 2002, pp. 265-267; Carney 2006, pp. 33-34. On Attalus: Heckel 2009, p.
27.
61 Heckel 1986, pp. 295-298; Borza 1990, pp. 206-208.
The Heir to the Throne
79
brother to wage war on Philip in defence of her honour and position.
Indeed these were certainly more than empty threats as Philip felt it
necessary to take diplomatic steps to strengthen the bond between himself
and Alexander of Epirus. The latter already had reasons to be grateful to
Philip for installing him on the throne in place of his uncle Arybbas, but
now Philip offered him his and Olympias’s daughter Cleopatra, and
therefore the Epirote king’s own niece, as a wife.62