#philotas

[jeannereames]

Part 2 of the conspiracies series. This time the Philotas Affair, which I've published on previously. Very simplified discussion, I'm afraid, as I had only 30 minutes.

[copper-dust]

He could recite the litany of the missing by rote: Harpalos, who fled after embezzling not once, but three times; Philotas, executed for partaking in an ill-conceived assassination attempt; Kassander, whose jealousy and social ineptitude locked him out of the inner circle; Erygios, felled in battle and honoured as a hero; and the one whose name they had studiously avoided saying in the king’s presence for the past eight months, lest they cause an earthquake to swallow the world.

From my upcoming Alexander Trilogy fic, Ptolemy POV, which will be released soon! This will be my first time writing anything for Alexander the Great.

[jeannereames]

Do you think that Alexander was truly liked by those around him, in a personal level? True friendship. Not really Hephaistion but also like Ptolemy, Seleucus, Roxanne, Arrhidaios, those who grew up with him or were his closest circle. Or was it all cynical politics?

Found it! That was weird. Appearing/disappearing asks?

Did the people around Alexander like him?

Did the people around Alexander like him? Hephaistion did. But the rest?

The asker refers to his personal circle, but I want to address this more broadly. I’ll return to his personal circle at the end.

First, we must beware of that pesky “shading” by later authors as part of their attempts to use Alexander’s career for commentary on their own time. They meant to show how success and power spoilt him and made him into a tyrant. That said, I believe he was well-liked overall. Yet things did change over time.

He began as king of a (relatively) small kingdom in northern Greece where all a Macedonian had to do before addressing him was to take off his hat—didn’t even use the title “King.” By his death, he’d taken over in a tradition that depicted rulers as “King of Kings” and “King of the Four Quarters” [e.g., the Whole World], even a god-king (Egypt). Going from (little) Macedonia to (enormous) Asia naturally cut down on his availability to soldiers and even his own Companions/Hetairoi—which pissed them off. Partly, it was simple logistics. He had too many responsibilities, and too many people wanted a piece of his time. Yet after Darius’s death in 330, he also added layers of court ceremonial to better align with ancient near eastern royal expectations and secure Persian respect.

That alienated his own people (maybe more than he expected). However exaggerated I believe the objections to his adoption of Persian custom, there’s little doubt it wasn’t well-received by traditionalists who preferred their kings approachable. Now, be aware: that approachability was more curated than our sources admit, as these sources inflated shifts to serve their own themes. Macedonian kings had bodyguards for a reason, and certain aspects of divine charisma were associated with their physical person (see below). The average citizen could NOT just wander up to one for a chat. Even so, elaborate Persian ceremonial was quite alien to Macedonia.

Nor was such ceremonial required of Macedonians in 330; our sources note that Alexander was essentially running two parallel courts with differing expectations. Nonetheless, the Macedonians took exception to the changes, offended to see “their” king “succumb” to foreign ways. He was getting uppity. They may also have feared it would trickle down to them eventually, even if it hadn’t yet.

Kleitos the Black’s exact words to Alexander in their infamous, alcohol-fueled spat is 99% invented. (Except maybe the line from Euripides; I’m least suspicious of that.) Some of it involved a play mocking officers who’d died recently at the Marakanda massacre as a means to absolve Alexander, who hadn’t been present, but whose failure to clarify the chain of command got them killed. I suspect that was a lot of it. But as with all “straw that broke the camel’s back” fights, it quickly escalated into a litany of complaints. Some of those were about the changes at the court. And Kleitos didn’t survive the encounter.

Alexander’s remorse appears to have been genuine. And the fact the army was ready to convict Kleitos of treason after-the-fact, said a lot about their empathy for the king. Nonetheless, after that, NOTHING was the same for his inner circle. In the right circumstance, he might kill you. And the army would absolve him of it.

Yet the army didn’t regard every negative act by Alexander as forgivable. They were not willing to overlook the murder of Parmenion. If they could understand/see themselves getting worked up enough to kill even a good friend when drunk, the cold, calculated removal of a potential (not even demonstrated) political threat was something else again. Especially a threat who’d served Alexander (and Philip) with such distinction.

E.g., nuance is required when assessing soldierly opinion.

A couple more things suggest Alexander was—overall—beloved:

1. At the battle of Granikos, he was elected the ancient equivalent of MVP; an award made by soldiers. He accepted, then never allowed his own name to be in the running again. Yet it was an award from the soldiers, and means he was respected not just as a leader, but as a fighter.

2. During both so-called “mutinies,” the soldiers didn’t want to kill him, they only wanted him to change his policies. If there’s some doubt the first actually occurred, the second at Opis certainly did. Yet when he showed the soldiers what it would mean to reject him (he replaced them), they came crying for his forgiveness. They didn’t say, “Good riddance” and head home.

3. On his deathbed, the Macedonian soldiers clamored so to see him that his top officers had to knock down a palace wall in order for them to parade through and say a final goodbye.

Now, that’s soldiers. What about his Companions/Hetairoi? At this high level, liking or disliking also involved personal advancement and family position—as the asker alluded to.

Those willing to “play ball” (so to speak)—go along with Alexander’s changes—had a whole new world opened. This wasn’t just his personal circle but included figures such as Krateros who understood what side his bread was buttered on. I’m not sure how much love was lost between him and Alexander, but they certainly respected each other. There were others who fell into this category, such as Koinos and Kleitos the White. Non-Macedonians/Greeks too, who may have seen him as a road to higher office than they’d held under Darius, or perhaps just to survival. Although I do think Poros and Alexander had a Moment; Poros remained loyal even after it served him to do so, despite his own son’s death at the Battle of Hydaspes. Something actually clicked with those two, I believe.

As for those who grew up with him—Hephaistion, Perdikkas, Leonnatos, Seleukos, Lysimakos … it seems they did like him, even if they didn’t always like each other. Seleukos was responsible for Perdikkas’s murder, in the Successor Wars later. There were others, but those names float to the top again and again. Similarly, although older, Harpalos, Ptolemy, Erigyios, and Laomedon all got themselves exiled for his sake. And Alexander never forgot it. The man who brought news to Alexander of Harpalos’s first flight (due to embezzling) was initially arrested for a false report. Alexander simply didn’t believe his friend had betrayed him.

 And it wasn’t just those men. The tale of Alexander drinking a medical potion given him by his doctor Philip—despite a missive from Parmenion warning him about Philip—became famous as a tale of trust. And sure enough, the drought cured the king, so ATG’s trust was well-placed. A later story about Alexander locking up Lysimachos in a cage with a lion in punishment is almost certainly bogus (with overtones of Roman-era stuff). Other evidence suggests great affection for his men. That’s perhaps why Philotas’s failure to inform him about a conspiracy endangering his life came as such a blow.

One may wonder if some of those guys, like the talented—and older—Krateros, didn’t want to replace him as king? Certainly after his death, they did vie to be kings.* Periodically, I run across some misguided person arguing that Philotas and/or Parmenion wanted to take his place, hence the conspiracy. It’s even embedded in our ancient sources, which didn’t understand Macedonian kingship (were thinking on Roman models).

But those men couldn’t be kings. They weren’t Argeads, and it mattered. (Such supposition also assumes they were part of the real conspiracy, rather than Philotas simply being an arrogant dumbfuck who failed to report it.)

The Argeads had Royal Charisma. Charis is a gift from the gods: literally. It can be beauty and grace, sure, but at its base, it simply means “favor.” The difference between a king and a tyrant was that the former had charis by descent. The men who became tyrants (or tried and failed) all believed they had it too, but by their own demonstrated aretē and timē. That’s why they were never just popular Joe Blow off the street. They were Olympic victors, winning generals, etc.  All were also aristocrats and fully intended to establish their own royal dynasties…but failed.

Until the Hellenistic Age. The Successors were just tyrants who made it work. Some (like Seleukos) even created mythological origins for themselves. Daniel Ogden has a good book on the creation of this myth: The Legend of Seleucus: Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World. If you’re curious about how all those things go into charis, I recommend it.

It’s not enough to be competent. One also needed the gods’ blessing. Charisma. That’s why Alexander’s officers might compete with and snipe at each other…but not with/at him.*

As for figures such as Roxane or Oxyathres (Darius’s brother who joined ATG’s court after Darius’s murder), it’s impossible to know what their opinion of him would have been. We have zero reliable evidence. It would seem Sisygambis (Darius’s mother) genuinely liked him. But again, this may have served later narratives, so I wouldn’t swear to it. She might have just made the best of a bad situation.

So! The final vote is that he seems to have been more popular/well-received than not … for a rather ruthless ancient world conqueror. Ha. I think that’s part of his eternal fascination. He’d be far less interesting if he’d simply been a monster.

Also, I forgot, but I did a separate post a while back on a related topic: Did Alexander's Companions Like Each Other

————————

* It took some years before the Successors started using the title “King” (Basileus). Antigonos Monophthalmos was the first, if I remember right, around the same time Alexander IV was murdered by Kassandros—and he didn’t claim the title himself. It was given him by Athens. Up to that point, they’d all simply called themselves “governors” and/or “regents.” Even if they might have been privately considering how to become kings in their own right, the charisma of Macedonian kingship belonged to the Argeads. Getting rid of Alexander IV (quietly), then Olympias’s murder of Philip III Arrhidaios and Hadea Eurydike left no Argeads. Then Alexander’s empire could become “spear won” territory.

[jeannereames]

Would it be correct to say that Parmenion and Alexander worked well together despite Callisthenes hostile propaganda?

I suspect they did, for the most part. In fact, if Diodoros's account of the Battle of Gaugamela is the correct one, then it's more or less what Parmenion suggested that, in Arrian's account (based on Ptolemy/Aristoboulos, based on Kallisthenes), Alexander supposedly rejected.

In retrospect, it would have seemed important not only for Parmenion to look like a fuddy-duddy, but for Alexander to have the brilliant, bold strategy that won the day. I suspect that, in actuality, he wasn't that secure until Issos, when he really proved his mettle.

But Parmenion chose to execute Attalos on Alexander's orders. He got plum commands for his sons out of it, but that meant he threw in his lot with Alexander, and needed to get along with him. Also, tbh, he and Philip were apparently good friends, not just king and general, so I suspect he wanted to see the heir Philip chose, on the throne.

Over time, some strain in that relationship may have emerged, but Alexander still trusted him on his critical supply lines when riding off into Baktria. That does NOT suggest a deeply strained relationship, imo.

[jeannereames]

Hello professor Reames! I just read your earlier answer about Antipatros, yet I still have to ask: didn't Alexander foresee how dangerous letting so much power consolidate in the hands of such a man could be? In the Macedon proper, nonetheless! Do you think, if Alexander had lived enough to return to Greece or at least after his conquests were solidified, that he would have removed Antipatros from his position as regent?

Why Antipatros Couldn't Become King

Antipatros couldn’t become king—not while an Argead lived. So why remove him? Also, it could have been dangerous. See, Antipatros had held the role of regent at least back to Perdikkas III, and his father/grandfather Iolaos, held it under Perdikkas II. That suggests a sort of hereditary position. To simply “remove” him from it would require a damn good reason.

Just like, when ATG came to the throne, he couldn’t just “fire” the Bodyguards (Somatophylakes) who his father had appointed. He had to wait until either they died, or they were reappointed (by him) to a more prestigious position such as a satrapy (as happened with Balakros).

If regent was indeed an hereditary role in Macedon, by removing Antipatros, Alexander would’ve had to be VERY careful about who he put there, if not Kassandros (which he’d have done when iron floated). Supposedly, towards the end of his life, he did send Krateros back to Macedon to become regent, as he’d apparently been quite ill, so it was a “medical leave” from active military duty. Although as I’ve said elsewhere, I think his real job, at least at first, was to oversee the construction of a fleet in Cilicia, for Alexander to attack Carthage. They just didn’t want to advertise that too soon. He may (or may not) have been intended to then go with the army to Carthage.

Antipatros was, meanwhile, summoned to Babylon. Again, some have assumed he was being called on the carpet for over-reach back home. I’m not so sure. If Alexander was about to leave Persia for Arabia and/or Carthage, it’s possible that he wanted somebody Very Experienced to hold the fort in Babylon/Persia. It’s possible, again, that he intended to leave Hephaistion there, but that obviously fell through. Even so, the orders to Antipatros and the sending home of Krateros happened sometime in the summer of 2024—before Hephaistion died. So that would have reflected what he intended before Hephaistion’s death cast a spanner in his original plans.

In short, I think there are ways to interpret these orders that aren’t negative. It’s possible he was worried about Antipatros’ consolidation of power, but I kinda doubt it—because that assumes Antipatros could make a bid for the kingship. And he couldn’t. Especially back home in Macedon, the citizens wouldn’t have accepted a non-Argead while an Argead lived.

The mistake I think folks commonly make is forgetting the “must be an Argead” rule…or discounting it because that dissolved in the Successor Wars. But it didn’t dissolve until surviving Argead males were dead. Nobody called himself “king” until after, even when they were acting like kings, and may well have planned to kill the king(s) as soon as they could get away with it. AND note that the Successor kings were really keen to marry an Argead woman (Kleopatra or Thessalonike). Furthermore, I suspect the idea that they could become kings themselves developed over time. Initially, they just wanted to carve off a chunk of the empire to effectively rule over, as satrap.

That (religious) royal charisma of the Argead line MATTERED, and was very, very deeply embedded in the consciousness of Macedonian tradition.

So, theories that Parmenion/Philotas were plotting to kill Alexander to become king, or that Antipatros planned to do so…those arise from not understanding how Macedonian kingship worked. And, furthermore, are kinda modern. Sure, it’s possible they wanted to kill Alexander (specifically) because they thought he’d got out of control…but they’d need an Argead to replace him. (Which would have been either Arrhidaios or, earlier, Alexander of Lynkestis.)

Such a supposition also assumes Philotas was part of Dimnos’s plot n the first place, and I don’t believe he was. I think he was just an arrogant little shit who didn’t take seriously, and so failed to report, Dimnos’s plot, then fell victim to his own stupidity. 😉 As for the supposed plot of Antipatros (and Aristotle) to poison Alexander (much later), that’s a product of the Successor Wars. Negative propaganda about Antipatros by his enemies.

So, I don’t think either plan was real anyway, at least not on Parmenion’s or Antipatros’s part. (Dimnos’s plot was certainly real.) Yet if they had been, neither Parmenion/Philotas nor Antipatros could have become king themselves. Ergo, any concerns on Alexander’s part wouldn’t have been over Antipatros consolidating power to take the throne, but consolidating power to assassinated HIM, specifically.

[jeannereames]

Certainly! Here’s a refined version of your question in polished English:

Dear Dr. Reames,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to ask about Barsine.

After the capture of Damascus by Parmenion, he presented Barsine’s Macedonian servant to Philotas and Barsine herself to Alexander as spoils of war. I wonder if Philotas might have felt inferior or resentful over receiving only a servant, while Alexander was given an aristocratic Persian like Barsine. Furthermore, might Barsine be a secondary character in your third book? It would be fascinating to explore her perspective.

Barsine

So, I saved this one as I wanted to use it as an example of how scholars can change their minds when presented with a convincing enough argument.

Previously, I’ve maintained that Barsine’s son Herakles was not Alexander’s child. My chief reasons for this were 1) that Alexander seemed to have had little/nothing to do with him during his lifetime, and 2) he was not seriously considered after Alexander’s death, despite being a healthy Argead male when any Argead could inherit the throne. Nearchos put him forward, but that idea was quickly dismissed. The infantry wanted Arrhidaios and the Cavalry + Hetairoi wanted the unborn baby of Roxane, if male. If Herakles was a healthy son of Alexander, bastard or not, he would seem to be a better choice than Arrhidaios, at the very least.

I’m still not entirely placated on that last point, but after reading Monica D'Agostini's forthcoming chapter on Barsine, then having a long chat with her at the recent ATG conference in Omaha, I’ve changed my mind about Herakles. And (more to the point) the significance of Barsine. She hasn’t been my focus, and I’m not nearly as well-versed in the Diadochi era as Monica is, so several points she made won me over.

But I think this is a good “object lesson,” if you will, in how scholarship is an evolving animal. Scholars SHOULD be open to changing their minds when new evidence or new (better) arguments present. I keep telling Monica she should write a full-scale paper/monograph on Barsine and her family (Artabazos, etc.), but she has other things to do. Maybe she’ll come back to it eventually.

The collection with her chapter in it should be out early in 2025. I’ll be sure to post about it when it is.

Now, to the question … the way the ancient sources tend to phrase things places all agency with the men—not the women. I rather suspect Barsine had a say in where she landed. Given the fact her father and brother were both still fighting with/for the Great King, she may have wanted a position that exerted some influence on Alexander if (when) the war ended—and he won. If not entirely clear just then that he would, after Issos, it would have been a wise move to ingratiate herself (and thereby, her family) to him. If he did lose and she returned to Persian hands, she always had the excuse of having been a captive.

Keep in mind that she also likely knew him from when her family (and Memnon) had resided in exile from Artaxerxes Ochus (prior Persian king) at the Macedonian court of Philip. They might now be on opposite sides, but she had the previous status of guestfriend. (This is also why Artabazos was later treated relatively well.) So I’d like to think this was as much Barsine’s choice as being “given” to Alexander. Just as any liaison later with the Persian Queen may have been initiated by rather than forced on her, in order to secure protection for her family. Persian women were much more accustomed to having a say in things. But it’s no surprise if the Greek sources (written by men for men) describe it as Parmenion giving Barsine to Alexander and encouraging him to take her as his mistress.

As for Philotas being jealous…no. Alexander was king, and as such, would have had his pick of the high-status Persian women. At the time, he decided to honor Statiera as Darius’s wife so set her aside as untouchable (no doubt until he was clear Darius wouldn’t bargain for her); the girls were young yet for marriage—as was he. Barsine was the most prestigious available Persian woman. And he knew her already. Philotas wasn’t in line for her, probably not even if Alexander had turned her down.

And yes, Barsine will have a role in the novels—more of one, after talking with Monica, than I’d originally foreseen. I have a very good idea now of how I want to employ her.

[jeannereames]

Hi,

Before I ask my question just saying I went through all (I hope...) of the questions on your blog about Krateros and Hephaistion.

Thanks for your detailed answers!

I have a question about Hephaistion get the Companions after the Philotas affair.

You wrote somewhere here that perhaps Krateros tried to shift the blame for Parmenion’s death to Hephaistion, spreading the rumor that Hephaistion convinced Alexander to give him the Companions.

The question is, could the army itself believe that Hephaistion was not worthy to get the Companions?

Apparently there is reason to suspect here: he is young, less privileged than Kartaros and perhaps also less experienced. The only advantage: he is Alexander's best friend.

On the other hand, we notice a recurring pattern in the promotions that Alexander gives to his friends, and he seems to assign roles based on talent and ability. That is, he believes that Hephaistion (and of course Kleitos) are worthy.

There is also another reason: if the soldiers believe that Hephaistion got the position only because he is a friend of the king, it is likely that they will not accept his command easily...

I would love to hear your opinion :) (and as my question shows, I have no problem with long answers ;))

Thanks!

Rise of Hephaistion and Krateros

Okay, so, some of my answer to this is … wait for the book. It’s one of the things I’m working on for it. Also, my opinion on the roles of the two men in the Philotas Affair, can be found in my article “Crisis and Opportunity” HERE.

A couple details, however, might be helpful.

First, Hephaistion was far from inexperienced at that point. He’d been commander of the agema (Royal) unit of the Hypaspists at the Battle of Gaugamela. Prior to that, he’d had several important assignments, including in Sidon, and (maybe?) negotiations with Mazaeus at the Tigris River prior to Gaugamela. There were others we’re probably not told about. Also, in Baktria/Sogdiana, he would lead sections of the army a couple times.

BUT

Krateros was about 10 years older, had (probably) been in Asia Minor with Parmenion when Philip II was killed, led a phalanx at Gaugamela, and was Parmenion’s Second-in-Command at Issus, then again at Gaugamela. Although Philotas was Parmenion’s son, in many ways, Krateros appears to have been his understudy. When ATG ran off to Arabia, he left Krateros (and Perdikkas) in charge of the main army at Tyre. Krateros later led the “back-up” troops during the Battle for the Persian Gates, in exactly the same position Parmenion usually held.

When Alexander came to the throne, he had the support of Antipatros, but badly needed that of Parmenion, who was in charge of a chunk of the Macedonian army already in Asia Minor. Given that Philotas (son #1) emerged as commander of the entire Companion Cavalry and that Nikanor (son #2) emerged as commander of the entire Hypaspists may suggests some horse trading. These were the two most prestigious commands in the entire army, after Parmenion’s own place as Alexander’s second-in-command, but he’d been that under Philip. Even if Philotas and Nikanor were fine commanders, that’s some serious authority pooled in ONE family. It’s hard to know how much to trust the sources, but Philotas appears to have been a dick. There are some reasons to wonder how much of that could be damning his name after the Philotas Affair to make Alexander look less dick-ish himself, but it’s pretty consistent in the sources. And some of his actions do sound like he was a bit full of himself. If he was son of the most important man in the army, he might have suffered from Rich Boy Syndrome.

Given Krateros’s prominence prior to Philotas’s fall, it’s not unreasonable for him to expect to get Philotas’s command. In the end, he more or less walked into Parmenion’s, after Alexander had the old man killed. But during the events of Philotas’ downfal, he may not have foreseen that far. Instead of getting the Companions himself, they were split between Kleitos and Hephaistion. Maybe Krateros was reassured behind the scenes. Or maybe Alexander decided Krateros had been gunning for Philotas and didn’t want to reward him. We’ll never know.

But it’s also not unreasonable for the men to accept Hephaistion, as long as paired with the more experienced Kleitos. After all, he wasn’t going from 0 to 60. If Nikanor had commanded the entire Hypaspists, Hephaistion had commanded the First (royal) unit IN the Hypaspists. And Nikanor died only a little bit before Philotas, albeit from disease. Alexander even gave him a magnificent funeral. We’re not told (although I’ll have to double-check) who was appointed to his vacant command, but it could very well have been Hephaistion. That would make his appointment to the Companions more of a lateral promotion than a huge jump. Kleitos had been in command of the royal unit of the Companions, previously, so his bump up was to be expected.

So there’s a bit of explanation, but I’ll be talking more about this in the book, with citations from the ancient sources, a new look at the Philotas Affair (a slight update of the article linked above), and a fuller discussion of Krateros, as well.

[jeannereames]

Just read your “What if… Alexander” post! Along those lines, what do you think might have happened had Alexander not chosen to assassinate Paremenion, and Parmenion had lived? Do you think he might have actually revolted to avenge the death of Philotas, as Alexander feared? I recall reading that even Parmenion had to tell his son to put a lid on his big mouth sometimes, but I imagine just like any other father, he would have loved his kid. Though obviously I’m not at all sure.

What if…Parmenion hadn’t been assassinated by Alexander?

He would have had to retaliate against Alexander.

Why? Family piety.

Family (blood) ties in the ancient world included religiously sanctioned obligation. Yes, even if you didn’t like the person. Didn’t matter. NOT to fulfill certain obligations would offend the gods. Children owed certain duties to parents. Parents owed certain duties to children. Brothers for brothers, etc. These included a proper burial, and to avenge their murder/death.

But these ties were tightest on one’s immediate blood relations. Marriage ties may or may not hold. Ergo, among the three who volunteered to torture the truth out of Philotas (so Curtius) is none other than Koenos…Philotas’s erstwhile brother-in-law. He didn’t want to go down with the ship…and didn’t need to. Philotas was not his blood relation. Also, cousins and other more distant relatives might be able to slip such obligations.

The fact Philotas was Parmenion’s last living son only intensified it, especially as it’s unclear if any of Parmenion’s sons had legitimate (not bastard) offspring. It doesn’t seem they did. (There may be some question with Philotas. Problem: multiple people in the army were named ‘Philotas,’ so which Philotas was the father of ___ isn’t always clear.)

By executing Philotas, Alexander (may have) cut off Parmenion’s family line. Of course Parmenion would have had to retaliate.

As I’ve argued elsewhere (“Crisis and Opportunity”), the mess with Philotas was a serious case of FUBAH. It got out of hand real fast—in part because there hadn’t been a serious attempt on Alexander’s life (outside battle) since waaaaay back in Cilicia at the campaign’s start, and that had been a continuation of the succession conflict.

So Alexander’s advisory council was a kicked anthill. Some were panicked, some saw opportunity. Alexander’s subsequent pardoning of the sons of Andromenes (all of whom, but especially the eldest, had been good friends of Philotas) speaks to his need to appear just and clement. Philotas really was a victim of his own stupidity and arrogance, but once committed, Alexander couldn’t leave Parmenion alive on his supply lines.

Unlike some, I don’t believe Alexander was especially gunning for Philotas, much less Parmenion. But others at court very well may have been, particularly Krateros, who was Parmenion’s understudy since, arguably, Granikos, certainly since Issos, where he’d commanded the infantry brigades under Parmenion’s overall command, e.g., officer #2 on the left. Contra Heckel, I don’t think Hephaistion had any expectation of being appointed as commander of the Companions, while Krateros very well might…which is why Alexander didn’t give it to him.

Anyway, I do think this a case where Alexander let matters get away from him, and he’d probably have really liked a reset the morning after. But done was done. To walk it back would have undermined his authority in a different way. Again, the so-called “Philotas Affair” (really the Dimnos Plot) was the first serious political challenge to his authority in years. They were scrambling, and the tail wagged the dog.

But if we’re playing “what if,” let’s play “what if.” The one potential mitigating factor would have been if Nikanor were still alive.

A quick reminder, Parmenion had three sons: Philotas (eldest, bit of an arrogant jerk, commander of the Companion cavalry, probable syntrophos and friend of Amyntas Perdikka, Alexander’s older cousin); Nikanor (middle child, commander of the Hypaspists, seems to have been more easy-going, older than ATG but not by as much); Hektor (baby, younger than ATG, a friend and favorite of the king).

Hektor drown in the Nile. We’re not told when or how exactly, but apparently accidental. ATG was heartbroken and gave him a big-ass funeral.

Nikanor died of unstated illness sometime around the army’s sojourn in Hyrkania, after they’d left Parmenion in Ekbatana (this is also post-Gaugamela, post-Persepolis, post-Darius’s murder). No hint of foul play, Alexander gave him a big-ass funeral.

Around 6 months after Nikanor’s death, the Dimnos Conspiracy occurred, implicating Philotas.

As I’ve said elsewhere (see my article linked above), I do not think Philotas involved. Heckel suggests Philotas may not have minded if the plot had succeeded, but wasn’t involved otherwise. I don’t think even that. I think Philotas was an arrogant idiot who didn’t take it seriously. E.g., he was guilty of hubris and stupidity. But he went down for it.

SO…let’s imagine Nikanor did not die 6 months earlier.

Matters would have fallen out very differently. First, I doubt Krateros would have thought he could push the way he did. One (unpopular) son of Parmenion was one thing, but going up against two, one of them not as disliked? Yeah…no. Even if he’d tried, he’d have been voted down.

Nikanor may even have upbraided his brother. (By all appearances, he was more like their father in temperament than Philotas.)

Yes, it’s possible that ATG would have still used the oversight to “get rid” of the family of Parmenion…but that requires subscribing to Ernst Badian’s view that Alexander had it in for Parmenion all along—which I don’t.

Put Nikanor back in the picture, and change the outcome. First, I think Nikanor would have got his brother off. But even if Philotas had been executed, had Alexander not executed Nikanor, then he almost certainly wouldn’t have sent an order for Parmenion’s assassination. Nor would Parmenion have retaliated. (After all, his last son would have been in Alexander’s clutches.)

And history might actually have recorded why Dimnos instigated a plot against the life of the king in the first place. (As it is, we have no f-ing idea because the fall of Philotas and Parmenion ate the real conspiracy.)