Hi! Iâve been reading about Pausanias and I was wondering what kind of emotional state Pausanias was in to kill Philip 8 years after the assault.
I believe that Pausanias was not from a high ranking family otherwise Philip would have had political pressure to actually punish Attalus and the other attackers rather than send him up the latter but the next continent over. Because of this, Pausanias probably gained his rank and influence in court by pleasung Philip. If he had been doing it starting when he was 14, thatâs a young age to learn your worth comes from sexually pleasing an older man. When he was replaced by the younger Pausanias, his reaction shows that Philip did not prepare him for moving on and Pausanias was desperate to regain favor in a very immature way, getting rid of who replaced him. Pausanias the younger seemed to try to regain honor by fighting to protect Philip, but got himself killed due to inexperienced. After this shock of how fragile life is, heâs beaten and gang raped. Pausanias goes to Philip to ask for him to avenge his honor, maybe a bit hypocritically after what happened when Pausanias the young tried to regain honor, but instead he send Attalus away with a promotion. Kind of a big insult to Pausanias that his attacker doesnât deserve punishment but a raise and a new person place to work. Not only that but because Philip is his king and ex-lover, he had responsibility to protect Pausanias and punish Attalus because an attack on Pausanias was an attack on Philip. So why after reaching the lowest point in his life did Pausanias wait to kill Philip for 8 years? I would love to hear your input.
Sorry if this is really long and rambling, I just have fallen in a rabbit hole and want to know an over 2300 year dead man better
First, a couple clarifications/corrections.
Pausanias was almost certainly from a high-ranking family, given the army positions he held. We think him related to the ruling family in Orestis, which means he and Perdikkas were cousins at some remove. Attalos not being exiled doesnât mean Pausanias came from a low family, it just means (at that point in time) Attalos had more clout. Had Pausanias really been a commoner, heâd have been executed as soon as the incriminating letter came to light.
Also, TIMING is very important. Diodoros tends to abbreviate, which can make his accounts confusing, especially where we donât have another, longer version to compare it to. Plutarch confirms that Pausanias did it but gives even less detail about the âoutrage.â Justin confuses who was the lover of the younger boy. (Itâs typical of Justinâs conflations and blunders.) Aristotleâs Politics (5.1311b) says only that Attalos and his friends insulted Pausanias, as part of a long list of kings who were assassinated for âpersonalâ reasons.
Last, and while what happened to Pausanias was horrible, we must also recall that he bullied a boy to death. Maybe he regretted it afterwards, maybe he didnât. Macedonian society could be vicious. But bullies are still bullies, and Pausanias was one. Iâm not inclined to let him off that hook.
When I was writing Becoming, and even more in Rise, I had to work my way through what I think actually happened. So my theories are laid out in the novels. Ergo, whatâs below contains spoilers, especially for Rise. Then again, I doubt anyone reading this is unfamiliar with events surrounding Philipâs murder, the wedding, etc., and my âspoilersâ are largely historical events.
Returning to my remark about TIMING⊠only two possible dates exist for the original incident: 345, when Philip was wounded in Illyria (ATG would have been around 11), or 337/6 (when ATG exiled himself to Illyria). Some scholars are inclined to go for the later date because it was after Attalos became Philipâs uncle-in-law, and we donât hear of Attalos before at court. Yet Diodoros will mention prior events when someone rises to prominence in his narrative. He does the same with Hephaistion at the time of his death, framing who Hephaistion was that Alexander went ballistic when he died. (We get, for instance, his reply to a letter from Olympias, with no idea when that exchange actually occurred.)
Same thing here. Pausanias suddenly matters in the narrative, so Diodoros stops to explain why, with the story about the other Pausanias, and Attalos. Iâm inclined (as are many) to believe the original incident occurred in 345, although even Diodoros makes it sound as if the rape followed quickly on the original offense. Itâs too bad we donât have a more reliable, less abbreviated account.
My other reason for thinking 345 a more likely date is because Iâm unsure the younger boy was named Pausanias. Diodoros is guilty of name confusion, and this may be what we call a doublet.
During the ferocious fighting 345, which wounded Philp, weâre told an Hegelochos died fighting beside him. Kleopatraâs fatherâs nameâAttalosâs older brotherâwas Hegelochos. But it may not have been the father who died in 345âŠmaybe it was his son. E.g., Kleopatraâs older brother, Attalosâs nephew and ward, was Philipâs new boytoyâŠwho Pausanias bullied into sacrificing himself to save the king.
But it would explain some things, wouldnât it? Not least Attalosâs rage. Justin says the younger boy was Attalosâs lover, not Philipâs, to try to explain Attalosâs interest. Yet Diodoros makes it clear this was a battle for the kingâs favor in the bedchamber, and Iâm going with Diodoros here.
The timing of the rape also isnât clear, but Iâm inclined to put it LATER, after Attalos became uncle-in-law to Philip. Justin, and even Diodoros, write as if thatâs when it happened. And if they were confused by their sources, or their attempt to epitomize their sources, conflating the original insult with Attalosâs Medea-level revenge explains confusion.
Remember that Greece had a history of blood feuds. We get a sense of it in Homer, but also in early Greek history of the early iron age and archaic age. Aeschylusâs play about Agamemnon and Orestes is all about blood feuds and the creation of the Athenian Areopagus to decide murder casesâŠto stop blood feuds from disrupting the polis.
Macedonia had a more Homeric sensibility in that respect. And the thing about blood feuds is that they escalate. Itâs not an eye-for-an-eye but BOTH-eyes-for-an-eye. (Hammurabiâs Code, which seems so brutal now, was also an attempt to avoid constant inter-family escalation.) This is why the S. Greece city-states tried to halt such feudsâŠand why Philip tried to be the voice of reason in the Attalos-Pausanias fight. To his own demise.
Yet why would Attalos seek vengeance so many years after his nephew died (assuming it was his nephew)?
His circumstances had changed. We also see him try his power against Alexander himself, essentially calling ATG a bastard at Kleopatraâs wedding. That takes some cojones. And/or some serious leverage against PhilipâŠthe kind he didnât have in 345.
Also, Pausanias would have been enormously foolish to accept a dinner invitation from Attalos not long after Attalos had asked for him to be exiled or executed. Makes a lot more sense if it occurred 8-9 years later.
But why does Attalos suddenly act as if he holds all the cardsâeven against the crown prince? Is he just deluded and full of himself, or is more going on?
In Rise, I propose that a lowland faction claim thereâs a highland plot to depose Philip in favor of his nephew Amyntas. In our histories, Philip often seems as if he were in total control, beloved by his Macedonians. Thatâs a product of later complaints concerning Alexanderâs âPersianizing.â Philip beatified!
In truth, Philip spent his first 5-10 years integrating highlands and lowlands. He gave farmers land so they could fight in his army, which in turn meant removing them as feudal tenant farmers of wealthy Hetairoi (Companons). Likewise, positions once open only to lowlanders now must be shared with highlanders. Both Archelaos & Alexander II (Philâs elder brother) had attempted similar social updates, and were assassinated. Philip got away with it because œ the army (including many wealthy landowners) died on an Illyrian battlefield with Perdikkas II in 359.
The silver lining of that stupendous loss was less opposition to Philipâs socio-military changes. Yet we shouldnât assume resentment didnât linger. The symbolic sword-crossing with Airopos of Lynkestis either right before or right after Chaironeia is proof of that. Philip exiled the Prince of Lynkestis for bringing dancing girls into camp. Hmmm. It wasnât about the girls. It was about a challenge to Philipâs authority.
Anyway, SOMEthing was going on. Itâs typically assumed that Attalos was a lowlander (and so I portrayed him in the novels: archon [governor] of Pireia), but we donât actually know where he was from. In any case, Philip married for politics. The notion that he fell in love with the girl and married her is a little too midlife-crisis. He married her for a reason, perhaps to appease the lowland faction.
Thatâs my theory anyway. But whatâs clear is Attalosâs increased confidence, enough to insult the prince, gave him hutzpah to get back at Pausanias too. And as noted, it makes more sense for Pausanias to accept a dinner invitation almost a decade later. All this occurred at Attalosâs home. In Rise, I have Attalos invite Pausanias there supposedly to make peace. Far from it, he gets the kid stupid-drunk then lets his grooms (e.g., slaves) rape him.
When Attalos goes to Philip, Philip is caught between Scylla and Charybdis. But being Philip, and clever, he decides to promote Pausanias to the âbodyguardâ (e.g., the Pezhetairoi, later Royal Hypaspists), the most prestigious non-cavalry unit in the army.
Then he kicks Attalos upstairs. He sent him with Parmenion to take the strike force into Asia. Itâs not like Parmenion had ever needed âhelpâ before. Poor guy was stuck babysitting Attalos. (Although Parmenion was also his father-in-law. Doncha love âAs the Macedonian World Turns?â)
Problem solved!, Philip thought. But Pausanias didnât see it that way, and with Attalos out of reach in Asia, Pausanias decided to kill the unjust judge. There is precedent for such a thing (Absalomâs rebellion against King David of Israel, in fact).
As Pausaniasâs timÄ, or social standing, had been smeared, his revenge had to be public, as well.
Youâre not the first to have questions. Iâve discussed Pausanias before HERE, HERE, and HERE.
(A reminder to perhaps run a search on my blog with asks + [keyword] and I may already have addressed the question.)