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.

seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China

seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from Russia
seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from China
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.
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 kingās 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.
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. Iāll return to his personal circle at the end.
First, we must beware of that pesky āshadingā by later authors as part of their attempts to use Alexanderās 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 hatādidnāt even use the title āKing.ā By his death, heād taken over in a tradition that depicted rulers as āKing of Kingsā and āKing of the Four Quartersā [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/Hetairoiāwhich 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 Dariusās 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, thereās little doubt it wasnāt 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 ātheirā king āsuccumbā to foreign ways. He was getting uppity. They may also have feared it would trickle down to them eventually, even if it hadnāt yet.
Kleitos the Blackās exact words to Alexander in their infamous, alcohol-fueled spat is 99% invented. (Except maybe the line from Euripides; Iām least suspicious of that.) Some of it involved a play mocking officers whoād died recently at the Marakanda massacre as a means to absolve Alexander, who hadnāt 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 āstraw that broke the camelās backā fights, it quickly escalated into a litany of complaints. Some of those were about the changes at the court. And Kleitos didnāt survive the encounter.
Alexanderās 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 didnāt 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 whoād served Alexander (and Philip) with such distinction.
E.g., nuance is required when assessing soldierly opinion.
A couple more things suggest Alexander wasāoverallābeloved:
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 āmutinies,ā the soldiers didnāt want to kill him, they only wanted him to change his policies. If thereās 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 didnāt say, āGood riddanceā 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, thatās soldiers. What about his Companions/Hetairoi? At this high level, liking or disliking also involved personal advancement and family positionāas the asker alluded to.
Those willing to āplay ballā (so to speak)āgo along with Alexanderās changesāhad a whole new world opened. This wasnāt just his personal circle but included figures such as Krateros who understood what side his bread was buttered on. Iām 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 theyād 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 sonās death at the Battle of Hydaspes. Something actually clicked with those two, I believe.
As for those who grew up with himāHephaistion, Perdikkas, Leonnatos, Seleukos, Lysimakos ⦠it seems they did like him, even if they didnāt always like each other. Seleukos was responsible for Perdikkasās 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 Harpalosās first flight (due to embezzling) was initially arrested for a false report. Alexander simply didnāt believe his friend had betrayed him.
Ā And it wasnāt just those men. The tale of Alexander drinking a medical potion given him by his doctor Philipādespite a missive from Parmenion warning him about Philipābecame famous as a tale of trust. And sure enough, the drought cured the king, so ATGās 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. Thatās perhaps why Philotasās 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 talentedāand olderāKrateros, didnāt 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. Itās even embedded in our ancient sources, which didnāt understand Macedonian kingship (were thinking on Roman models).
But those men couldnāt be kings. They werenāt 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 āfavor.ā 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 aretÄ and timÄ. Thatās why they were never just popular Joe Blow off the street. They were Olympic victors, winning generals, etc. Ā All were also aristocrats and fully intended to establish their own royal dynastiesā¦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 youāre curious about how all those things go into charis, I recommend it.
Itās not enough to be competent. One also needed the godsā blessing. Charisma. Thatās why Alexanderās officers might compete with and snipe at each otherā¦but not with/at him.*
As for figures such as Roxane or Oxyathres (Dariusās brother who joined ATGās court after Dariusās murder), itās impossible to know what their opinion of him would have been. We have zero reliable evidence. It would seem Sisygambis (Dariusās mother) genuinely liked him. But again, this may have served later narratives, so I wouldnāt 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 thatās part of his eternal fascination. Heād be far less interesting if heād 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
āāāāāāāā
* It took some years before the Successors started using the title āKingā (Basileus). Antigonos Monophthalmos was the first, if I remember right, around the same time Alexander IV was murdered by Kassandrosāand he didnāt claim the title himself. It was given him by Athens. Up to that point, theyād all simply called themselves āgovernorsā and/or āregents.ā 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 Olympiasās murder of Philip III Arrhidaios and Hadea Eurydike left no Argeads. Then Alexanderās empire could become āspear wonā territory.
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.
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 couldnāt become kingānot 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 āremoveā him from it would require a damn good reason.
Just like, when ATG came to the throne, he couldnāt just āfireā 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 wouldāve had to be VERY careful about who he put there, if not Kassandros (which heād have done when iron floated). Supposedly, towards the end of his life, he did send Krateros back to Macedon to become regent, as heād apparently been quite ill, so it was a āmedical leaveā from active military duty. Although as Iāve 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 didnāt 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. Iām not so sure. If Alexander was about to leave Persia for Arabia and/or Carthage, itās possible that he wanted somebody Very Experienced to hold the fort in Babylon/Persia. Itās 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 2024ābefore Hephaistion died. So that would have reflected what he intended before Hephaistionās death cast a spanner in his original plans.
In short, I think there are ways to interpret these orders that arenāt negative. Itās possible he was worried about Antipatrosā consolidation of power, but I kinda doubt itābecause that assumes Antipatros could make a bid for the kingship. And he couldnāt. Especially back home in Macedon, the citizens wouldnāt have accepted a non-Argead while an Argead lived.
The mistake I think folks commonly make is forgetting the āmust be an Argeadā ruleā¦or discounting it because that dissolved in the Successor Wars. But it didnāt dissolve until surviving Argead males were dead. Nobody called himself ākingā 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 soā¦those arise from not understanding how Macedonian kingship worked. And, furthermore, are kinda modern. Sure, itās possible they wanted to kill Alexander (specifically) because they thought heād got out of controlā¦but theyād 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 Dimnosās plot n the first place, and I donāt believe he was. I think he was just an arrogant little shit who didnāt take seriously, and so failed to report, Dimnosās plot, then fell victim to his own stupidity. š As for the supposed plot of Antipatros (and Aristotle) to poison Alexander (much later), thatās a product of the Successor Wars. Negative propaganda about Antipatros by his enemies.
So, I donāt think either plan was real anyway, at least not on Parmenionās or Antipatrosās part. (Dimnosās plot was certainly real.) Yet if they had been, neither Parmenion/Philotas nor Antipatros could have become king themselves. Ergo, any concerns on Alexanderās part wouldnāt have been over Antipatros consolidating power to take the throne, but consolidating power to assassinated HIM, specifically.
Certainly! Hereās 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 Barsineās 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, Iāve maintained that Barsineās son Herakles was not Alexanderās 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 Alexanderās 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.
Iām 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, Iāve changed my mind about Herakles. And (more to the point) the significance of Barsine. She hasnāt been my focus, and Iām 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 āobject lesson,ā 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 sheāll come back to it eventually.
The collection with her chapter in it should be out early in 2025. Iāll 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 menānot 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 endedāand 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 Iād like to think this was as much Barsineās choice as being āgivenā 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 itās 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 jealousā¦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 Dariusās wife so set her aside as untouchable (no doubt until he was clear Darius wouldnāt bargain for her); the girls were young yet for marriageāas was he. Barsine was the most prestigious available Persian woman. And he knew her already. Philotas wasnāt in line for her, probably not even if Alexander had turned her down.
And yes, Barsine will have a role in the novelsāmore of one, after talking with Monica, than Iād originally foreseen. I have a very good idea now of how I want to employ her.
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 Parmenionās 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. Itās one of the things Iām working on for it. Also, my opinion on the roles of the two men in the Philotas Affair, can be found in my article āCrisis and Opportunityā HERE.
A couple details, however, might be helpful.
First, Hephaistion was far from inexperienced at that point. Heād been commander of the agema (Royal) unit of the Hypaspists at the Battle of Gaugamela. Prior to that, heād had several important assignments, including in Sidon, and (maybe?) negotiations with Mazaeus at the Tigris River prior to Gaugamela. There were others weāre 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 Parmenionās Second-in-Command at Issus, then again at Gaugamela. Although Philotas was Parmenionās 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 āback-upā 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 Parmenionās own place as Alexanderās second-in-command, but heād been that under Philip. Even if Philotas and Nikanor were fine commanders, thatās some serious authority pooled in ONE family. Itās 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 itās 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 Kraterosās prominence prior to Philotasās fall, itās not unreasonable for him to expect to get Philotasās command. In the end, he more or less walked into Parmenionās, after Alexander had the old man killed. But during the events of Philotasā 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 didnāt want to reward him. Weāll never know.
But itās also not unreasonable for the men to accept Hephaistion, as long as paired with the more experienced Kleitos. After all, he wasnāt 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. Weāre not told (although Iāll 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 thereās a bit of explanation, but Iāll 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.
Just read your āWhat if⦠Alexanderā 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 Iām not at all sure.
What ifā¦Parmenion hadnāt 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 didnāt like the person. Didnāt 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 oneās 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 Koenosā¦Philotasās erstwhile brother-in-law. He didnāt want to go down with the shipā¦and didnāt 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 Parmenionās last living son only intensified it, especially as itās unclear if any of Parmenionās sons had legitimate (not bastard) offspring. It doesnāt seem they did. (There may be some question with Philotas. Problem: multiple people in the army were named āPhilotas,ā so which Philotas was the father of ___ isnāt always clear.)
By executing Philotas, Alexander (may have) cut off Parmenionās family line. Of course Parmenion would have had to retaliate.
As Iāve argued elsewhere (āCrisis and Opportunityā), the mess with Philotas was a serious case of FUBAH. It got out of hand real fastāin part because there hadnāt been a serious attempt on Alexanderās life (outside battle) since waaaaay back in Cilicia at the campaignās start, and that had been a continuation of the succession conflict.
So Alexanderās advisory council was a kicked anthill. Some were panicked, some saw opportunity. Alexanderās 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 couldnāt leave Parmenion alive on his supply lines.
Unlike some, I donāt believe Alexander was especially gunning for Philotas, much less Parmenion. But others at court very well may have been, particularly Krateros, who was Parmenionās understudy since, arguably, Granikos, certainly since Issos, where heād commanded the infantry brigades under Parmenionās overall command, e.g., officer #2 on the left. Contra Heckel, I donāt think Hephaistion had any expectation of being appointed as commander of the Companions, while Krateros very well mightā¦which is why Alexander didnāt give it to him.
Anyway, I do think this a case where Alexander let matters get away from him, and heād 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 āPhilotas Affairā (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 weāre playing āwhat if,ā letās play āwhat if.ā 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, Alexanderās 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. Weāre 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 armyās sojourn in Hyrkania, after theyād left Parmenion in Ekbatana (this is also post-Gaugamela, post-Persepolis, post-Dariusās murder). No hint of foul play, Alexander gave him a big-ass funeral.
Around 6 months after Nikanorās death, the Dimnos Conspiracy occurred, implicating Philotas.
As Iāve 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 wasnāt involved otherwise. I donāt think even that. I think Philotas was an arrogant idiot who didnāt take it seriously. E.g., he was guilty of hubris and stupidity. But he went down for it.
SOā¦letās 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? Yeahā¦no. Even if heād tried, heād 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, itās possible that ATG would have still used the oversight to āget ridā of the family of Parmenionā¦but that requires subscribing to Ernst Badianās view that Alexander had it in for Parmenion all alongāwhich I donāt.
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 wouldnāt have sent an order for Parmenionās assassination. Nor would Parmenion have retaliated. (After all, his last son would have been in Alexanderās 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.)