unfavourable to them. Therefore these rallies of Macedonian soldiers were
not a consequence of constitutional rights but a show of force, rebellions
in which the soldiers temporarily got the upper hand.3
Once the constitutional theory started being questioned as based more
on a priori imaginings of how an ancient society evolved rather than on
sources regarding the history of Macedonia, a different interpretation
emerged in historiography. According to some historians, Macedonian
monarchs had absolutist aspirations, which they tried to realise insofar as
they were able to overcome opposition from powerful Macedonian barons.
The barons were to make up a royal council which, if there were
controversies within the royal family, would resolve the matter of royal
3 Arr., An. , 4.11.6. Lock 1977; Errington 1978; Anson 1991; Virgilio 2003, pp. 35-
37. On the word nomos see Ostwald 1969, pp. 20-54.
86
Chapter III
succession.4 Unfortunately, there is also no evidence in the sources that
such a permanent royal council ever existed. There was of course a
meeting of Macedonian leaders to decide Alexander’s successor after his
death at Babylon but the exceptionality of this event does not allow us to
presume that such a royal council was a regular institution. Likewise it is
very dangerous to draw general conclusions, as some constitutionalists do,
from the way Macedonian soldiers behaved during Alexander’s expedition
and worse still to imply that soldiers also behaved in such a way before
Alexander’s time. Soldiers who spent over a dozen years on a campaign
beyond there homeland mostly in each others company developed a type
of solidarity that is characteristic for mercenaries. As had already been
observed more than once among mercenaries in Greece, at times when
there was a conflict of interests and the future seemed uncertain, a kind of
military democracy emerged to usurp power for the sake of a common
cause. That was what happened in the Macedonian army towards the end
of Alexander’s reign and at the start of the Hellenistic age, but there is no
evidence that such a system functioned in Macedonia before the Asian
expedition. 5
To recapitulate: both perennial succession crises in
Macedonia and the lack of evidence of a universally accepted system of
succession allow us to assume that no such system existed.6 The effective
rejection of claims made by pretenders was effectively a kind of ‘rites of
passage’ for new rulers who had to prove they were worthy of the position
of power they held. That too was Alexander’s situation after Philip’s death.
After being acclaimed king the first step Alexander had to take was to
avenge his father’s death. Alas Pausanias was already dead, so the most
Alexander could do was have his corpse strung up. Meanwhile a search
was started for accomplices. An unnamed individual was immediately
sentenced to be pounded to death. The exceptional cruelty of the sentence
and the context in which this fragmentary piece of information appears
indicates that the victim must have been considered in some way
responsible for Philip’s death. 7 Alexander’s position continued to be
uncertain. Plutarch even writes that ‘All Macedonia was festering with
revolt and looking towards Amyntas and the children of Aeropus’. Insofar
as the sons of Aeropus, i.e. the princes from Lyncestis, could not seize
power on their own, there can be no doubt they were important members
4 Errington 1978; Greenwalt 1989, pp. 19-20, 31, 34-36. The alleged royal council:
Hammond 1979, pp. 158-160.
5 Borza 1990, pp. 231-242.
6 Borza 1990, pp. 234, 243-245; Ogden 1999, pp. 3-4.
7 Just., 9.7; POxy 1798 = FGrH 148 F1. Perhaps Diod., 17.2.1 and Plu., Alex. , 10.7
allude to this event too.
The New King
87
of an aristocratic opposition to the faction supporting Alexander. The
the defection of some high-ranking Macedonians to the court of the Great
King and their later emergence in his army. Amyntas IV, in turn, had lived
in the shadow of his uncle Philip when the latter was king though – by the
Macedonian court’s standards – his fate was not the worst. Philip had
indeed stripped him of any meaningful power but he had spared him his
life, sent him on diplomatic missions and even gave him his daughter
Cynane as a wife. Thus after Philip’s death Amyntas became the natural
focus for those who were dissatisfied with Alexander’s ascension to the
throne. Much later Philotas would be accused of helping Amyntas, which
– regardless of the veracity of the charge – confirms the significance of
this particular Argead in 336. Alexander’s situation was unexpectedly
weakened even more with the return from Epirus of a vengeful Olympias.
One of her victims was the newly born child of Philip and Cleopatra (a
daughter by the name of Europa), killed in the mother’s arms, though
probably not baked alive as Pausanias relates on the basis of some
sensationalist source. The distraught Cleopatra committed suicide, perhaps
forced to take her life by Olympias. Some modern historians try to justify
Olympias on the grounds that infant deaths were of little meaning to
people in those times and that dynastic murders within the Argead family
were very frequent. Thus, they argue, Olympias had not actually broken
any social norms. Ancient sources, however, view it differently. His
mother’s actions angered Alexander for they stirred up an unnecessary
conflict with Cleopatra’s uncle Attalus, who was still very popular in the
army, and potentially also with Attalus’s father-in-law, Parmenion.
Olympias had allegedly also burned the body of Philip’s murderer,
Pausanias, ceremonially adorned with a gold wreath, on a pyre and then
burying the remains. Even if these claims are no more than spiteful
rumours, the deaths of Cleopatra and Europa happened for real. In order to
cover up this very bad impression Alexander could do no more than allow
the bodies of Cleopatra and Europa to be buried in Philip’s grave.
Meantime Attalus, who was in Asia Minor, decided not to rebel against
Alexander, although he did exchange correspondence with Demosthenes,
who was urging him to do so.8
8 Plu., mor. , 327c; Arr., An. , 1.17.9; Arr., Succ. , fr. 1.22; Curt., 3.11.8, 6.9.17, 6.10.24; Paus., 8.7.7; Plu., Alex. , 10.7, 20.1; Diod., 17.2.3, 17.3.2, 17.48.2;
Polyaen., 8.60.1; Just., 9.7, 12.6. Wilcken 1967, pp. 62-63; Badian 1963; Bosworth
1971, pp. 102-103; Bosworth 1988, pp. 25-26; Errington 1978, pp. 94-95; Burstein
1982, pp. 159-161; Ellis 1982; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 38-39; Prandi 1998; Baynham
1998, p. 147. Apology of Olympias: Carney 1993; Carney 2006, pp. 43-48.
88
Chapter III
Alexander did not allow his real or perceived political rivals live long,
though there is no reason to assume as E. Badian does that immediately
after his ascension a great purge was started in which all potential enemies
were eliminated. This certainly did no
t happen straight away as is best
testified by the case of Attalus, who if only for his quarrel with Alexander
at Cleopatra’s wedding should have been the new king’s first victim. And
yet Attalus was still alive at the start of 335 during Memnon’s counter-
offensive against the Macedonian expeditionary corps in Asia Minor. The
first to be killed were the two princes from Lyncestis, Arrhabaeus and
Heromenes, charged with being involved in the conspiracy to murder
Philip. Their brother Alexander of Lyncestis saved his life by prudently
declaring his support to king Alexander immediately after Philip’s death.
Besides, he was the son-in-law of Antipater, the most powerful member of
Alexander’s circle, which may have been another reason why Alexander
refrained from the Macedonian custom of sentencing to death all the
members of a family accused of conspiracy against the monarch. It was for
such a conspiracy that Alexander’s rival to throne Amyntas IV was killed.
This must have happened before the summer of 335, for then Alexander
could offer the hand of Amyntas’ now widowed wife, Cynane, to his ally
Langarus, king of the Agrianians. In face of such vigorous measures taken
by Alexander to secure his position, Attalus tried to save his own skin by
showing himself to be totally loyal to the new monarch and submitting to
him the letters he had received from Demosthenes. But all this was to no
avail for Alexander had decide to eliminate the man who had dared insult
him verbally and then raise his hand in anger at him during Cleopatra’s
wedding. The king sent a unit of soldiers to Asia Minor headed by his
trusted officer Hecataeus. This unit joined the army commanded by
Attalus and Parmenion and then killed the first of these two commanders.
There can be no doubt that the murder of a popular general in the middle
of his camp could not have been carried out without the active cooperation
of the other Macedonian commander, Parmenion, who put his allegiance
to the increasingly more powerful monarch above loyalty to his son-in-law.
We do not know when exactly Attalus was killed, but it most probably
happened in the second half of 335. In any case Alexander saw to it that
before his expedition to the East no member of Cleopatra and Attalus’s
family remained alive. Scholars believe that Parmenion made a secret deal
with Alexander by which in return for Attalus’s head Parmenion was
guaranteed a position of power and influence under the new king. This
may largely explain why by the start of the Asian expedition so many
The New King
89
posts in the Macedonian army were held by Parmenion’s relatives and
protégés.9
On the symbolic level the most important undertaking in the first days
of Alexander’s reign was to organise a funeral befitting his tragically
killed father. Indeed Diodorus, Justin and a fragment of an anonymous
history of Alexander found on an Oxyrhynchus papyrus all mention that
one of the first actions of the new monarch was to have his servants
arrange the burial of Philip’s body.10 Although there is no mention of it in
the sources, it is generally assumed that Philip’s body was burnt on a pyre
and next his charred bones were deposited at the Argeads’ traditional
burial site. Archaeologists have serendipitously located this very
necropolis of the Macedonian kings situated in Aegae, today’s village of
Vergina. Already in 1855 the French archaeologist L. Heuzey discovered
the significance of the area’s most prominent feature, the so-called Great
Tumulus. The Great Tumulus is an artificial mound with a 110 m diameter
and 12 m high that Antigonus Gonatas had erected to protect royal
Macedonian graves from total plunder; indeed, already in 274/273 they
had been broken into by Celts from an Aegae garrison that Pyrrhus had
founded. In 1976 excavations at the Great Tumulus carried out under the
direction of Manolis Andronikos revealed three graves. Only one of them,
Tomb I, had already been robbed in ancient times. In keeping with
Macedonian custom, these do no bear any inscriptions, but the lavishness
and high artistic quality of the items found within undisturbed graves leave
no doubt that they were those of Argead family members from the second
half of the 4th century.11
Up to this point the opinions of all historians concur. The controversy
begins with attempts to associate the charred remains found in specific
tombs with specific historical figures. Naturally, the controversy primarily
concerns Tombs II and III, which were found intact. The mere fact that an
ancient royal tomb was uncovered that had not been robbed is extremely
rare in archaeology, but here we can talk of an even greater find in that the
Vergina graves are those of the Argeads from a period when this dynasty
greatly influenced the world. The remains of the most famous of the
Argeads, Alexander the Great, are not to be found there – he was buried in
Egypt – therefore scholars have concentrated on finding the last resting
9 Diod., 17.2; Curt., 6.9.17; Arr., An. , 1.5.4; Arr., Succ. , fr. 1.22; Just., 11.2, 11.5, 12.6.14. Badian 1964, p. 193; Burstein 1982, pp. 159-161; Ellis 1982; Will 1986,
pp. 31-32; Heckel 1986, pp. 299-300; Bosworth 1988, pp. 26-28; O’Brien 1992, p.
44; Prandi 1998.
10 Diod., 17.2.2; Just., 11.2.1; POxy 1798 = FGrH 148 F1.
11 Andronicos 1984, pp. 17-62.
90
Chapter III
place of his father. The less problematic of the two tombs is No. III, where
a teenage king was buried. This was in all probability Alexander IV, the
son of Alexander the Great and his Iranian wife, Rhoxane, who was born
in 323 and murdered in 310/09. The matter looks quite different with
Tomb II. It comprises two chambers: thee main chamber contains the
remains of a man who had died at approximately the age of forty+ and
then there is also an antechamber containing the remains of a woman at a
younger age. Only two Argeads could possibly be associated with the
man’s body: Philip II or his son Arrhidaeus (Philip III), who was murdered
in 317 and formally buried in spring the following year. Already in 1978
M. Andronikos announced that this was Philip II’s resting place and this –
despite reservations expressed by some non-Greek scholars from the start
– was generally accepted as a fact and continues to be the official stance of
Greek academics to this day. If this could be confirmed beyond a
reasonable doubt, Andronikos’s find would be one of the most astounding
archaeological achievements of all time. The Greek archaeologist has
based his claim on several premises: the age of the man being estimated at
around 46 rather than 40 (which was the age of Arrhidaeus when he was
killed); the apparently hasty manner in which the tomb was built; the fact
that one leg of the skeleton is slightly shorter than the other, which could
be explained by the wound Philip had received and the discomfort it later
caused him when wearing standard length grieves as well as the discovery
of five ivory heads which could represent Philip, Olympias and Alexander.
Finally attention is drawn to the style of the mural paintings in the
chambers, which is more appropriate to the years 336-335 than to 316.
Encouraged by Andronikos’s hypotheses pathologists from the universities
of Manchester and Bristol, equally familiar with research into ancient
Egyptian mummies as with modern forensic science, conducted detailed
examinations of the bone fragments and established that buried in grave II
was a man aged from 35 to 55 and a woman who had died at an age
anywhere between 20 and 30. Fragments of the man’s skull allowed for a
simulated reconstruction of his face. And in this reconstruction the experts
even noticed a deformation in one of the eye sockets, which was
interpreted as resulting from damage caused by an arrow. The socket also
includes protrusions which the experts interpreted as a consequence of the
healing process and the specific work of the muscles after the loss of an
eye – perhaps the eye Philip lost at the siege of Methone.12
12 Andronicos 1978; Andronicos 1984, pp. 97-232; Green 1982; Lane Fox 1980,
pp. 77-95; Bernhardt 1992, pp. 72-73; Prag, Musgrave, Neave 1984; Musgrave
1991; Hammond 1994, pp. 179-182; Drougou 1996; Prag, Neave 1997, pp. 53-84;
Worthington 2008, pp. 234-241.
The New King
91
These arguments do not satisfy everyone. The age at death of those
found in Tomb II, calculated insofar as contemporary science would allow,
could apply equally well to the ages of Philip II (c. 46) and Cleopatra (c.
20) as to the ages of Philip III (c. 40) and his wife, Adea-Eurydice. Using
the ivory heads found in Tomb II as an argument is also not valid because
the identification of only 5 out of 20 is reasonably certain. Even more
dubious are the arguments concerning the wall paintings; certain elements
in them, especially lion hunting scenes, had not appeared in Greek art
since the archaic period and only reappeared after Alexander’s expedition
to Asia and intensive contact with Oriental monumental art. Some scholars