#parmenion

I absolutely adore your blog. May you compare and contrast Parmenion and Antipater’s roles at Philip II’s court (I am assuming they had similar roles at Alexander’s court)?

Antipater was regent, but it seems like Parmenion was Philip’s second in all things. So why was Parmenion not regent? I am having a hard time understanding what they each do. Also, how did Parmenion get to Pella? I believe you said that he was from Pelagonia. Doesn’t that mean his people were conquered by Philip? Why would he want to work with Philip then and how did he become so trusted? If the sources do not tell us, what are your thoughts?

Thank you for your time!

Parmenion and Antipatros

Some very good questions. To answer, we need to understand how the court worked—and fortunately, you have asked the right person! The court is my jam. I’ve also talked about the various offices before: Traditional Offices at the Macedonian Court.

Although Macedon was not a constitutional monarchy in any real way, that isn’t to say certain families did not have a fair bit of authority and power. These are the Hetairoi (Companions, e.g., the landed nobility). They couldn’t be kings but were king-makers. Theoretically, they all seem to have been considered equal, but predictably, some had more status (and wealth) than others. Those men are loosely referred to in our sources as Friends (Philoi).

The king could both make, and break, Hetairoi, and a few (reaching back at least to Alexander I) were Greeks and other non-Macedonians. Yet especially newer/younger kings couldn’t remove the status with impunity. For most sons, it would have been a rubber stamp. Although siding with the wrong Argead in an accession battle was one way to both lose that status and one’s life. Yet even then, and while Argeads regularly offed their competition for the throne, it doesn’t seem that they executed that competitor’s supporters without a good reason.

New kings frequently needed the support of enough important Hetairoi in order to survive and claim the throne. Witness Alexander’s accession. He was (apparently) challenged by his cousin Amyntas (IV) in a totally predictable move, and was able to arrest Amyntas and put him to death because he was backed by Antipatros (and eventually, Parmenion). Attalos was executed as well only because Parmenion agreed to it. And Alexander paid handsomely for that support in plum commands for Parmenion’s two eldest sons, Philotas and Nikanor. (Yes, both proved perfectly capable, even if Philotas was apparently something of a jerk, but getting those two slots did not owe to either ability or age as both were rather young. It owed to Daddy Parmenion supporting the new king.)

We know rather less about the accessions of Philip and (earlier) his brothers because the sources are a mess, but it’s clear a LOT of infighting—and horse-trading—occurred, including even outside interference from Thebes and Pelopidas, then again from Iphikrates and Athens.

So the power of kings, while it could be extensive, depended entirely on their own success and personal charisma. As Gene Borza liked to say, “The Macedonian king could get away with whatever he could get away with.” Early in a king’s reign, that usually wasn’t much.

Why this matters? Not only was Alexander’s accession challenged, but so was that of his father before him. We don’t know exactly what support Philip had, but I’m willing to bet it included Antipatros. If we can use names as a clue (and I think we can), Antipatros was either the son or grandson of a man named Iolas who’d functioned as regent under Perdikkas II back during the Peloponnesian War. E.g., he came from an established high-ranking Hetairos family. Later, Antipatros would help Alexander to the throne too, and then was a major player in the early years of the Successor Wars after ATG died. So he saw at least two kings, maybe three, to the throne.

As for Parmenion, we just don’t know. Charles Edson connected him to the Pelagonian royal house (of Upper Macedonia) via an inscription. This has mostly been followed by subsequent scholars, even though later in Philip’s reign, he married his daughter to Attalos and had land around Amphipolis, giving him ties to Lower Macedonia. Ergo, some have suggested he wasn’t from Pelagonia after all, but I see no reason both things can’t be true. With the taking of Amphipolis, a number of (already) wealthy Macedonian Hetairoi were given additional estates. That was part of a Macedonian king’s job: win wars and distribute loot (including land).

As for when he appeared on the scene? If he really was from Pelagonia, I suspect that Philip met him as a result of the invasions of (Illyrian) Bardylis. That’s where Pelagonia is: the border between the two areas. In fact, Pelagonia (like Lynkestis) may have had Illyrians living there, or married into the royal clan (like Lynkestian Eurydike’s father, Sirras). Parmenion (and his troops) may even have been significant in Philip’s victory over the Illyrians just a year into his reign. Certainly, he was already trusted enough to get independent commands by 356—when we’re told he was successful in a battle around the time Alexander was born. (Philip reportedly received 3 pieces of good news on one day: that Parmenion had won a major battle, that his horse won at the Olympics, and that Alexander was born alive and apparently healthy.) Below, Alexander Sarcophagus ... Parmenion *might* be the dude on the far right.

Philip’s early career established a pattern of Antipatros remaining as regent in Pella while Parmenion was off winning battles with/for Philip. Although Antipatros was perfectly capable as a military commander (as he showed during Agis’s Revolt, et al.), he probably wasn’t as good as Parmenion. Besides, and while we can’t prove it with any certainty, it’s at least plausible that Antipatros’s family had some historic claim on the office of the regent. (So above.)

That said, on a couple occasions Parmenion did act as Philip’s ambassador, so he also had non-military assignments equal in prestige to Antipatros’. This might have furthered the implied antipathy between the two at Philip’s court, with each having his own faction and allies: Antipatros-Antigonos-Balakros-Alexander of Lynkestis vs. Parmenion-Attalos-[Krateros?]. But IF Krateros were initially on Parmenion’s side, he later changed to go after Philotas, then married Antipatros’s daughter Phila after ATG’s death. This is useful to note, as we make a mistake if we assume alliances can’t change. After all, I suspect that at one point, Hephaistion and Krateros were friendly. Later, Hephaistion and Perdikkas may have been…but so were (maybe?) Hephaistion and Ptolemy, and Ptolemy (famously) hated Perdikkas.

The king may even have subtly encouraged such competition as he wouldn’t have wanted any one figure to be too powerful compared to himself. A family with that much power could decide to assassinate the king and put another (more pliable) Argead in his place, thereby effectively ruling from the shadows.

So, the alliances of 336 when Philip was murdered do not necessarily have to be the same as they were 12 years later when Alexander died. I think it tough to be sure who was aligned with whom for any length of time. A lot of this is based on chance events and later Successor War ties. But that’s not always a reliable metric. After all, if Plutarch can be believed, Krateros and Eumenes were good friends…except Eumenes was the author of the battlefield trick that resulted in Krateros’s death, and they fought on opposite sides in the Successor Wars. (Krateros with Antipatros and Antigonos against Eumenes and Perdikkas.)

Anyway, I hope this helps explain why Antipatros and Parmenion had different roles at Philip’s court.

-----------------------------

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.

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.

I am reading selections from Arrian for classical studies hw and i am slowly losing my mind. Arrian is going to second place for my historical nemesises (nemesi?) i hate that kiss ass so much.

Let me start by saying that DWTL Is one of the best novels I've ever read and I can't thank you enough for writing it. It was a pleasure to read such a great characterization of Hephaistion. Also, thank you for running this interesting blog, every new entry is a discovery!

Regarding my question: you've mentioned in a prior ask that Hektor was implied to be a "favorite" as well. Can you tell me which are these sources? I've tried to do my own research but I'm not and expert and It shows ahahah.

Thank you! I'm so glad you enjoyed it, and like my version of Hephaistion. :-)

As for Hektor as a possible favorite: that comes solely from the description of Hektor's death in Curtius (4.8.7-9). He's described as being in the flower of his youth and dear to Alexander for a short while: eximio aetatis flore, in paucis Alexandro carus.

Carus means "dear one" or "beloved," but context determines whether or not it would have a romantic/sexual implication. It's not like eromenos, where the romantic/sexual overtones are clear. Given the additional description of him being in the flower of his youth, that sorta implies he was a little more than just a bosom buddy.

Ες Δανάην ἔρρευσας, ᾿Ολύμπιε, χρυσός, ἵν’ ἡ παῖς ὡς δώρῳ πεισθῇ, μὴ τρέσῃ ὡς Κρονίδην.

- Parmenion

If possible, could you talk a bit about the Alexander of Lyncestis affair? I always get mixed up about it (because of the relation to Antipater and Parmenion). Do you think he really wrote to Darius and would had murdered Alexander if he hadn't been stopped?

First, a quick summary of who he was, and the importance of Lynkestis vis-à-vis Macedon, then I’ll explain the conspiracy and why it’s possible Parmenion framed him.

Welcome, btw, to the Wonderful World of Macedonian Prosopography. I am a crazy person and love this stuff. 😝 Also, because we have too many Alexanders, I’m going to call Alexander the Great “ATG” throughout.

Alexander’s father was Airopos (Aeropus), basileus* of Lynkestis, cousin of Philip’s mother, Eurydike. When Airopos was banished by Philip at some point during the Charioneia campaign (338), his eldest son Alexander became basileus in turn. Alexander had two younger brothers, Heromenes and Arrhabaios, and probably unmentioned sisters.

He married Antipatros’s daughter, although we’re not told when. Antipatros’s kids are curious. The man was older than both Philip and even Parmenion, but had a string of offspring (7 boys and 4? girls) who seem to have been mostly ATG’s generation or younger. Perhaps he married late. Or his first wife was barren/had only a few children, and he married again after she died. We know the names of 3 of Antipatros’s daughters: Phila, Eurydike, and Nikaia, but there may have been an older fourth. The wife of Alexander of Lynkestis was not the famously clever Phila, already married to Balakros (later married to Krateros, and then to Demetrios Poliorketes). Possibly she was Eurydike or Nikaia, who didn’t marry (again?) till after ATG’s death. Yet if so, I’d expect the earlier marriage to the Lynkestian to be mentioned when we hear of them during the Successor Wars (as with Phila). Ergo, I suspect this an older, 4th daughter.

We don’t know Alexander’s age when he took control of Lynkestis. Airopos was still in the army in 338, so no older than his 60s, making him a contemporary of his cousin, the queen mother (Eurydike). This puts a terminus ante quem of mid-40s for Alexander of Lynkestis, but he could have been as young as late 20s (not any younger). I think mid/late 30s a safe guess.

As for his canton…before Philip, Lynkestis was an independent kingdom in Upper Macedonia located around Lake Ohrid. (See Selena’s map from my novel.) Along with Elimeia, Lynkestis had a troubled history with lowland Macedonia and the Argead royal house. On multiple occasions, they’d supported alternative Argeads for the throne—mostly to destabilize Macedon. Recent archaeology at Tribinishte (ancient Lychnidos) shows wealth and cultural development by the mid-500s (Archaic Age). But they seem to have been culturally distinct from lowland populations around Aegae, Sindos, and Archontiko (whose archaeology also shows wealth from c. 570 onward). The Lynkestian royal house had ties to Illyrian royal houses via intermarriage. Philip’s mother, a Lynkestian princess, was arguably half-Illyrian (see Beth Carney’s relatively recent monograph on her).

My main point is that these people had been independent, and quite powerful, for a few hundred years before Philip brought them under the Macedonian yoke. He did the same thing to Elimeia, in the southern highlands, as well as Orestis, sandwiched in-between, plus Pelagonia and Eordia. With the possible exception of the latter, and Almopia, these areas were NOT that firmly under the Macedonian heel. (See map again)

This explains why ATG would so readily believe the younger Lynkestian brothers were involved in Philip’s murder. They even had Phillip’s banishment of their father as an incentive. Initially, the older brother Alexander was included in the accusation, but as he supported ATG immediately after Philip’s murder, and had Antipatros protecting him, he was acquitted.

This isn’t to say a conspiracy against Philip existed involving any of them, but for historical reasons, it was an easy sell to claim there had been.

We tend to think of Philip as Master of his Castle and forget his subjugation of the upper cantons was relatively recent, and perhaps not so settled as later historians present it. The 338 banishment of Airopos is a good clue to continued unrest. Airopos and his buddy were exiled for bringing flute girls into camp (breaking Philip’s rules). But this wasn’t about the girls—it was about challenging Philip’s authority. Airopos fled to Athens, with whom Lynkestis had a long history too. As early as the Peloponnesian War, Lynkestis and Athens had ganged up on Perdikkas II.

Philip may have wanted to be rid of a troublesome father in favor of a more tractable son. Married to a daughter of Antipatros, his trusted regent, Philip preferred Alexander. It’s not unlike what he did in Epiros earlier. He’d chased out Arybbas, Olympias’s uncle, to put her brother Alexander on the throne because he trusted Alexander’s loyalty. (Yeah, too many Alexanders.)

In any case, Alexander of Lynkestis’s tie to Antipatros would elevate him under Philip and save him under Alexander—at least once.

Before we go on, I have to explain another court rivalry that isn’t about Alexander of Lynkestis, but would impact him. That’s the (apparent) rivalry between Antipatros and Parmenion.

Antipatros’s family seems to have had ties to the Argead royal house. During the Peloponnesian War, an ancestor held an important command and regency under Perdikkas II. Antipatros himself had been advisor and regent to Phil’s older brother, Perdikkas III. Philip “inherited” him, and some stories from Athenaeus’s Supper Party suggests he may have found him a bit intimidating. Antipatros was also a friend of Aristotle, and penned several histories and other works.

Contrast Parmenion. His rise at court coincided with Philip’s kingship and they were personal friends. It’s been suggested he was a relative of the Pelagonian royal family, whose basileus was a Philotas (probably not Parmenion’s own father, but you’ve seen how popular royal names repeat). Pelagonia is tucked up against Lynkestis and Illyria. Perhaps even more than Lynkestis, Pelagonia had Illyrian ties. Anyway, if that’s true, I wouldn’t be surprised if Philip first met Parmenion when he put down Bardylis in his first year or so on the throne.

Wherever he came from, Parmenion was a New Man at Philip’s court in contrast to Antipatros’s establishment position. A rivalry is understandable. That also means they would be looking for ways to undermine the other via proxies. Like Alexander of Lynkestis.

The 334 arrest of Alexander of Lynkestis in Syria for conspiracy is a holdover from ATG’s accession crisis, rather than something new. Returning a moment to Philip’s murder, ATG accused Darius of being involved, but if he had been, it was likely only in terms of offering money and a place to escape to for Pausanias. Darius later tried to suborn Attalos, but Attalos turned over Darius’s letter to ATG. It didn’t save him. There was also an Amyntas, son of Antiochus, who hated Alexander so much he fled to Darius’s court (and who was, in fact, supposedly Alexander of Lynkestis’s contact there).

We see Darius willing to exploit already existing fractures in Macedonian politics. Persians had been doing that in Greece for over a hundred years.

So, I don’t doubt a letter from Darius was intercepted by Parmenion on the person of a Persian courier. After questioning [torturing] the courier for the plot, Parmenion sent both letter and courier to ATG, claiming the letter was Darius’s reply to Alexander of Lynkestis, after an earlier overture from the Lynkestian. Maybe. But Alexander of Lynkestis had fared well under ATG. In thanks for his support after Philip’s death, ATG had first given him command in Thrace, then later elevated him to command of the Thessalian Cavalry, the most prestigious cavalry unit after the Companions themselves.

According to the letter, Darius had promised Alexander of Lynkestis the Macedonian throne plus 100 talents…if he’d kill ATG.

For a variety of reasons, some reactionary against ATG, Parmenion is often painted rather rosily by modern historians. Without diminishing the fact ATG murdered him, Parmenion didn’t get to his position by playing nice. Not long before, he’d thrown Attalos under the bus. Perhaps he did so out of loyalty to his friend Philip, and who he’d wanted to inherit the throne—but note that Parmenion’s eldest sons walked away with really plum assignments, especially for their ages: Philotas in command of the entire Companion cavalry, and Nikanor in command of the entire Hypaspists. And of course, Daddy got to stay #2 in the army. Alexander would have been a fool to demote him, but Parmenion understood how to play power games.

Antipatros might be back in Macedonia, but his allies had been plucking nice assignments too, post-Granikos. Balakros (son-in-law) was the new satrap of Cilicia, Antigonos Monophthalmos satrap of Phrygia, and Antigonos’s cousin Kallas also had a new satrapy…freeing command of the Thessalians for Alexander of Lynkestis. Parmenion might have worried Antipatros was getting ATG to put people in place to undermine Parmenion’s influence.  

It’s important to keep an eye on who is aligned with whom. I don’t think it outside the realm of possibility that Parmenion framed Alexander of Lynkestis to undercut Antipatros.

The offer of the Macedonian throne is curious. The Lynkestian house is often noted as related to Philip and Alexander. But the most recent tie was via Eurydike, Philip’s mother. That would give Philip a possible claim on the Lynkestian throne…but not a claim of Alexander or his brothers to the Macedonian throne, which could only pass to an Argead. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t an older marriage tie between the two houses, but the link is less clear (our sources suck).

My point is that Alexander of Lynkestis’s claim on the Macedonian throne might be no stronger than one from the Elimeian royal family, or Orestian, or Eordian…. Even if Darius gave him 100 talents, that’s a brush-off. Darius wasn’t going to help Alexander of Lynkestis keep the throne. He just wanted to see ATG dead and the succession in turmoil…so the Macedonians would sink back into the bogs that spawned them and leave HIM alone.

Given Alexander of Lynkestis’s current high position at ATG’s court, but also the precariousness of the army in Asia, making a deal with Darius wouldn’t have been in his best interest (imo). Yet accusing Alexander of such a deak would have been in Parmenion’s interest. And it wouldn’t be hard to convince ATG of such a conspiracy, as Alexander of Lynkestis had been accused once before of plotting the assassination of an Argead.

ATG, or perhaps his advisors, decided to err on the side of caution and arrested Alexander of Lynkestis. But he wasn’t killed. ATG didn’t want to piss off Antipatros. Or he didn’t entirely believe Parmenion. Maybe both. So he had Alexander of Lynkestis carted around under house arrest until the army got to Baktria 3½-4 years later.

I find it ironic that Alexander of Lynkestis met his end as part of the fallout from the Philotas Affair—which he had nothing to do with. ATG just finally felt strong enough in his kingship to get rid of inconvenient baggage. So Alexander of Lynkestis was put to death alongside the son of the man who possibly framed Alexander in the first place, and who would shortly be murdered himself. Perhaps it gave Alexander some bitter satisfaction as he stood beside Philotas, facing down the “firing squad” of spear throwers.

* Basileus means “king,” and these men were kings before being absorbed by Macedon under Philip. Yet by ATG’s day, the Greek term is best translated “princeling.” They were hereditary canton governors now.

On Prosopography: I use a lot of “appears to,” “seems,” and other qualifying terms because so much prosopography is built on probabilities, not certainties. We infer a lot. For those unsure what a prosopographer does, we try to discern the relationships between people, and how that may impact their political choices and alliances. 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon for the ancient world.

Initial prosopography of Alexander’s court was done by Helmut Berve at the beginning of the 20th century: Das Alexanderreich auf Prosopographischer Grundlage, I & II. In the late ‘70s/early 80s, Waldemar Heckel began to revamp that (in English) in a series of articles about the court and army. In the early 90s, he published the first edition of The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire. As the name suggests, it focused only on the men. In 2006, he produced Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great, that did include women. At roughly the same time (they’re contemporaries), Elizabeth Carney was publishing on women at the court, notably in Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. But she’d also published a number of articles on politics that included men too.