Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T21:32:04.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Trials under Alexander the Great and his Successors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

James L. O'Neil
James L. O'Neil*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1931 F. Granier argued that treason trials and other matters of major political importance were heard by meetings of the Macedonian army assembly and this view received wide acceptance. However in the 1970s it was challenged by R. Lock and R.M. Errington, who concluded that there was no right of the army to be consulted in such cases, but that the king might seek to win the troops' approval before undertaking controversial actions, such as executing popular officers. More recently, N.G.L. Hammond has revived the view that the Macedonian army had the right to hold trials in cases of treason.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 33 , November 1999 , pp. 28 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Granier, F., Die makedonische Heeresversammlung (Munich 1931) 51Google Scholar; cf Aymard, A., ‘Sur l'Assemblée Macédonienne’, REA 52 (1950) 133, 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Études d'Histoire Ancienne (Paris 1967) 159, 163Google Scholar; Briant, P., Antigone le Borgne (Paris 1973) 346Google Scholar.

2 Lock, R., “The Macedonian Army Assembly in the Time of Alexander the Great.’ CP 72 (1977) 102Google Scholar; Errington, R.M., “The Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchy’, Chiron 8 (1978) 91Google Scholar.

3 Alexander the Great, King, Commander and Statesman (London 1981) 13–18Google Scholar; The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions and History (Oxford 1989) 382Google Scholar.

4 Adams, W.L., ‘Macedonian Kingship and the Right of Petition’, Archaia Makedonia 4 (Thessalonike 1986) 45Google Scholar.

5 Gagarin, M., Early Greek Law (Berkeley 1986) 106 ff.Google Scholar; Gluckman, M., Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society (Oxford 1965) 204Google Scholar.

6 Errington (n.2) 91; cf. McKechnie, P., ‘Manipulation of Themes in Quintus Curtius Rufus Book Ten’, Historia 48 (1999) 49–53Google Scholar.

7 McKechnie (n.6) 60; cf. Martin, T.R., ‘Quintos Curtius' Representation of Philip Arridaeus and Josephus' Accounts of the Accession of Claudius’, A J AH 8 (1983) 166, 184Google Scholar; Hammond, N.G.L., Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1983) 136Google Scholar.

8 Bosworth, A.B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian 1 (Oxford 1980) 24, 359Google Scholar; 2 (1995) 9; ‘History and Rhetoric in Curtius Rufus’, CP 78 (1983) 153Google Scholar; cf. Atkinson, J.E., A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus' Historiae Alexandri Magni Books 5 to 7.2 (Amsterdam 1994) 213–215Google Scholar.

9 Curtius may be drawing a parallel to behaviour of the emperor Tiberius: Atkinson (n.8) ad 6.8.16, 224.

10 Hammond, , The Macedonian State (n.3) 53Google Scholar; cf. 143 f.; id., Alexander the Great (n.3) 15 etc.; Walbank, F.W., A Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957) 551Google Scholar.

11 Curtius does not make it clear whether Macedonians spoke a different language or a dialect of Greek difficult for non-Macedonians to understand. Hammond, N.G.L., ‘Literary Evidence for Macedonian Speech’, Historia 43 (1994) 133–142, shows it was a difficult dialect of GreekGoogle Scholar.

12 N.G.L Hammond believes that only the Macedonian troops formed the court: The Macedonian State (n.3) 63 f., and that those who would not understand the Macedonian dialect were East Greek speakers from Upper Macedón: (n.l 1) 136 f.; ‘Alexander's Order during the Cleitus Episode’, AHB 9 (1995) 112 fGoogle Scholar. Bosworth, A.B., “The Tumult and the Shouting”, AHB 10 (1996) 26Google Scholar, says that Philotas wished the non-Macedonians to hear his defence, even though they would not decide his fate.

13 Errington (n.2) 86 f., shows that the original reading of the text makes sense and does not require emendation.

14 Errington (n.2) 91; Atkinson (n.8) 229.

15 Curtius says modo, not lege or even more: Errington (n.2) 89.

16 Granier (n. 1) 51 translates it as “Brauch”, custom.

17 Badian, E., ‘Alexander the Great and the Loneliness of Power’, in Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1968) 196Google Scholar. Brunt, P.A. in Arrian, , History of Alexanderand Indica (Cambridge, Mass. 1989) 1, App.11, 519Google Scholar. is Atkinson (n.8) 225.

19 Atkinson (n.8) 233.

20 Badian (n. 17) 197.

21 (n.2) 88.

22 Arrian's brief account may show the partiality of his main source Ptolemy to one of Ptolemy's allies, Craterus: Atkinson (n.8) 241. On Ptolemy's history see Errington, R.M., ‘Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander’, CQ 19 (1969) 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Goukowsky, P., Essai sur les origines du Mythe d'Alexandre 2 (Nancy 1981) 122Google Scholar, argues that Diodorus gives a condensed version of the account which Curtius follows. This would show that Curtius' material is not invented by himself.

24 Yardley, J.C. (trans.) and Heckel, W., Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus (Oxford 1997) 212Google Scholar.

25 Goukowsky (n.23) 122.

26 Gagarin (n.5) 106; cf. Gulliver, P.H., Social Control in an African Society (London 1963)21Google Scholar.

27 Errington (n.2) 91-107; Atkinson (n.8) 245,259.

28 Bosworth (n.8) on 3.26.3 suggests that Arrian's source, Ptolemy, has transferred the manner of execution from the case of Alexander the Lyncestian, which followed directly afterwards.

29 Latte, , ‘Steiningung’, RE 3a (Stuttgart 1929) 2294Google Scholar.

30 Hammond, , The Macedonian State (n.3) 61Google Scholar.

31 Roisivach, V.J., ‘Execution by Stoning in Athens,’ CA 6 (1987) 236, 246Google Scholar; cf. Errington (n.2) 88.

32 Goukowsky (n.23) 132; Atkinson (n.8) 213.

33 Curtius 7.1.5-9. Cf. Arrian 1.25; D.S. 17.32; Justin 11.2.2.

34 Curtius has either forgotten that he has said stoning was the Macedonian custom, or else his sources recorded a different procedure in this case.

35 Bosworth (n.8) 363 f.

36 Bosworth, A.B., Conquest and Empire (Cambridge 1988) 103Google Scholar.

37 Curtius 7.1-2; cf. Arrian 3.27. Arrian's account may be affected by Ptolemy's efforts to blacken the reputation of a rival: Bosworth, A.B., ‘Arrian and the Alexander Vulgate’, in Alexandre le Grande: Image et Réalité [Entretiens Hardt 22] (Geneva 1976) 14Google Scholar.

38 Atkinson (n.8) 256.

39 Atkinson (n.8) 28, 253.

40 Bosworth (n.8) 12-14; Atkinson (n.8) 256.

41 A. Aymard(n.1) 160.

42 Badian (n. 17) 197.

43 Gunderson, L.L., “The Tymphaeans in Curtius' Historiae Alexandri’, Archaia Makedonia 4 (Thessaloniki 1986) 233Google Scholar.

44 On Curtius' account, see Hammond (n.7) 136.

45 Though he also says Parmenio was assassinated, while Philotas was punished: Rubinsohn, Z., “The “Philotas Affair”—a Reconsideration', Archaia Makedonia 2 (Thessaloniki 1973)412Google Scholar.

46 Yardley(n.24)213.

47 This letter is of doubtful authenticity: Atkinson (n.8) 233.

48 Bauman, R.A.Political Trials in Ancient Greece (London 1990) 135Google Scholar.

49 (n.17) 197; cf. Bosworth (n.8) 362; Anson, E.M., “The Evolution of the Macedonian Army Assembly (330-315 B.C.)’, Historia 40 (1991) 232Google Scholar.

50 The Macedonian State (n.3) 228.

51 Atkinson (n.8) 226. In fact, Alexander seems to have had more than 12,000 phalangites with him in 330: Bosworth, A.B., ‘Alexander the Great and the Decline of Macedón’, JHS 106 (1986) 4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Hammond, , Alexander the Great (n.3) 316 n.87Google Scholar.

53 Bosworth, A.B., Alexander and the East (Oxford 1996) 104Google Scholar.

54 Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1948) 75Google Scholar; Badian (n.l7) 198; Bosworth (n.36) 115; Hammond, , The Macedonian State (n.3) 175Google Scholar.

55 ‘Alexander's remorse was doubtless genuine, his desire to die less so.’ Yardley (n.24) 226Google Scholar.

56 Atkinson (n.8) 140.

57 Granier (n. 1) 43-6; Hammond, The Macedonian State (n.3) 228Google Scholar. For the contrary view: Anson (n.49) 233.

58 Errington (n.2) 108; Bosworth (n.8) 99.

59 Lock (n.2) 103; cf. Bosworth (n.8) 99.

60 Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich 1926) 369Google Scholar. Heckel, W., The Marshals of Alexander's Empire (London 1992) 351Google Scholar. We would expect the father of a royal page to hold a prominent command, and Sopolis son of Hermodorus not only held such a position, but his father's theophoric name is based on the god Hermes, just like Hermolaus’.

61 Carney, E., “The Conspiracy of Hermolaus”, CJ 76 (1987) 228 fGoogle Scholar.

62 Bosworth (n.8) 99—on Arrian 4.14.3.

63 Bauman (n.48) 146.

64 Diodoras 17.106.2 refers to the punishment of many lawbreaking satraps and generals in 327 B.c., but he gives no names or details of the trials (if any). Hammond, The Macedonian State (n.3) 225 accepts that Alexander exacted punishment in person in one of these cases.

65 Anson (n.49) 222; Atkinson (n.8) 231; Badian (n.17) 194.

66 Hammond, , Alexander the Great (n.3) 39Google Scholar.

67 Arrian 7.8, Curtius 10.2-3, Diodorus 17.109.2, Justin 12.11.9. Plutarch, Alexander 72Google Scholar does not mention the execution of the mutineers.

68 Anson (n.49) 235.

69 Borza, E.N., In the Shadow of Olympus (Princeton 1990) 247Google Scholar.

70 Badian (n.17) 197.

71 Hammond, , Alexander the Great (n.3) 182Google Scholar.

72 Cross, G.N., Epinis (Cambridge 1932) 109–114Google Scholar; Hammond, N.G.L., Epirus (Oxford 1967) 526–533Google Scholar. Plutarch, Pyrrhus 5.5Google Scholar has the king of Epirus swear to uphold the law; cf. the oaths of Spartan kings and ephors, Xen. Lac. Pol. 15.7Google Scholar.

73 Hammond, , The Macedonian State (n.3) 228Google Scholar; Errington (n.2) 107 says ‘there is no question here of a trial, of course.’

74 Errington (n.2) 107.

75 Errington (n.2) 116; cf. Briant (n. 1) 331; Anson (n.49) 237.

76 Briant (n.1) 15 calls it a meeting of Perdiccas' friends; Errington (n.2) 117 says it ‘would undoubtedly be friendly towards Perdiccas’.

77 Briant (n.1) 266 concluded there were two separate trials. Errington, R.M., ‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos 323-320 B.C.’, JHS 90 (1970) 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, thought there was no trial at all. In (n.2) 118, he suggested there was a hearing with Ptolemy represented and where Perdiccas lost control over his troops. Anson (n.49) 240-244 believes that the army could have protected Ptolemy at the first hearing and that there was a second hearing, which ratified the assassination of Perdiccas.

78 D.S. 18.37. Cf. Errington (n.77) 67.

79 Even though the SiTvershields were the most enthusiastic supporters of the powers of the Macedonian army assembly: Anson (n.49) 246.

80 Polyain. 4.1.2; cf. D.S. 18.75.1; Granier (n.l) 84 ff. shows this must be a ‘Macedonian’ and not an Athenian assembly. Cf. Bosworth, A.B., ‘A New Macedonian Prince’, CQ 44 (1994) 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Bosworth (n.80) 57-61.

82 Bosworth (n.80) 64 n.59.

83 Cf. D.S. 19.15 on this.

84 Granier (n.1) 84 f.

85 Aymard(n.1) 119.

86 Granier (n.1) 96 holds that it must have been the army; Briant (n.l) 155 argues for a double trial.

87 D.S. 19.51; cf. Justin 14.6.

88 Bosworth (n.80) 65.

89 Granier (n.1) 89 ff.; Francisci, P., Arcana Imperii (Milan 1947) 2.454Google Scholar. Tarn, W.W., JHS 51 (1931) 307 considers such a request correct in lawGoogle Scholar.

90 Hammond, , The Macedonian State (n.3) 62Google Scholar.

91 Carney, E.D., ‘Olympias’, Ane. Soc. 18 (1987) 60 and n.65Google Scholar.

92 D.S. 19.61-62; Briant (n.1) 338 ff.; cf. Granier (n.1) 94; N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Nature of the Hellenistic State’, forthcoming in Archaia Makedonia.

93 Zancan, P., Il Monarcato ellenistico nei suoi elementi federativi (Padua 1934) 39Google Scholar argues that the assemblies respected one another's decisions, but Antigonus' assembly rejected Cassander's on Olympias. Cf. Tam (n.89) 307; Errington (n.2) 119.

94 Plb 4.2.2; cf. Walbank (n. 10) 450.

95 Cf. Errington, R.M., ‘Philip V, Aratus and the “Conspiracy of Apelles’”, Historia 15 (1967) 20, 29Google Scholar. Aratus' memoirs finished where Polybius' continuous text commenced: Plb 1.3.2; 4.2.1.

96 Hammond, N.G.L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia 3 (Oxford 1988) 381Google Scholar.

97 Errington (n. 95) 19.

98 Plb 4.82-87; Errington (n.95) 22-28. Philip V, rather than Aratus, had profited from their reconciliation: Walbank, F.W., Aratos of Sicyon (Cambridge 1933) 147, 153Google Scholar.

99 Walbank (n.10) 550; cf. Errington (n.95) 32 n.51.

100 Errington (n.95) 32.

101 Plb 5.16.5-7; Walbank (n. 10) 550 ff.

102 Manuscripts A & B read ‘called to account’, some later MSS read ‘struck’, Hulsch conjectured ‘judged , Büttner-Wobst reads ‘stoned’.

103 Plb 5.25; Errington (n.95) 33.

104 Hammond and Walbank (n.96) 382; cf. Walbank (n.10) 561 (on 5.27.8).

105 Alexander committed his prestige by prosecuting Philotas and also appealed to the soldiers to avenge him: Curtius 6.9.24.

106 Plb 5.27; cf. Walbank (n.10) 560 f., Errington (n.95) 33.

107 Granier (n.1) 128; Aymard (n.1) 130.

108 Errington (n.2) 80-85; Adams (n.4) 43-52.

109 Errington (n.2) 84.

110 Plb 5.28.5-8; Walbank (n.10) 550 ff.

111 Granier (n.1) 129.

112 Walbank, F.W., Philip V (Cambridge 1940) 61 n.4Google Scholar; (n.10) 552; Errington (n.95) 35 n.60.

113 Errington (n.95) 30.

114 Plb 23.10. Livy 40.3-4 is derived from this passage of Polybios.

115 Attalos II often consulted an inner council of only three friends: Virgilio, B., Il “Tempio Stato” di Pessinunte (Pisa 1981) 113 ffGoogle Scholar.

116 Livy 40.8.4. Livy's account is based on Polybios, but has probably undergone rhetorical embellishment; Walbank (n. 112) 247.

117 (n.1) 135. Was Philip more arbitrary than Alexander, or less confident of his control over the army?

118 Livy 40.58.9; Hammond, The Macedonian State (n.3) 360. It is uncertain whether Antigonus was blamed for the failure of the march of the Bastarnae or for ambitions for the throne; ibid. 363 and n.24.

119 Granier(n.1) 157; Bikerman, E., Institutions des Séleucids (Paris 1938) 186 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 Plb 8.21; cf. Walbank, , Commentary 2 (1967) 97Google Scholar.

121 He then became the royal guardian, D.S. 28.13.

122 On Dorimachos, Plb 18.54.4; his earlier alliance with Scopas, ibid. 4.5.1; 13.1. For parallel cases see Plb 2.9 (Ptolemy VII) and D.S. 22.10.6 (Pyrrhos).

123 Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (Oxford 1961) 4 ffGoogle Scholar.

124 Osborne, R., ‘Law in Classical Athens’, JHS 105 (1985) 42 f., 52 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Gulliver (n.26) 297 ff.; Gluckman (n.5) 43 f.

125 Plb 28.10.2 says Perseus would have been if he had won the Third Macedonian War. On royal powers see Hammond, , Alexander the Great (n.3) 1, 15, 255Google Scholar; The Macedonian State (n.3) 57.

126 Gulliver (n.26) 122.

127 Hoebel, E. A., The Law of Primitive Man (Cambridge, Mass. 1964) 26Google Scholar. Cf. Hart (n.1 23) 6.