Plutarch primarily focuses on Philotas’ character, but clearly describes the order in which the conspiracy was discovered. During his examination of the trial, Plutarch only mentions evidence that had been well established through Philotas’ mistress’s secret reports to Alexander, who endured Philotas’ insults in silence. The consequences of Philotas’ trial resulted in Parmenion’s execution. Alexander’s underhanded elimination of two very prominent officers instilled a previously unknown fear in his remaining commanders. A further catalyst for this fear was Alexander’s murder of Cleitus shortly after this incident.
Since Quintus Curius Rufus focused mainly on the social and political portions of Alexander’s conquests, he provides a very descriptive analysis of the events surrounding Philotas’ trial. Like Plutarch, Rufus initiates the conspiracy plot with Dimnos’ confession to his homosexual lover. This key information is brought to Philotas’ attention but is rejected due to the unreliability of its source.1 Because of the delay in Alexander’s reception of the conspiratory information, he charged Philotas with treason. A secret meeting afterward confirmed Philotas’ guilt through a confession under torture. When brought on trial already in chains, Philotas unsuccessfully defended himself against hateful attacks by other generals and Alexander himself. Although Philotas was accused of treason and executed, none of the other conspirators ever named Philotas as being involved.2
After concluding the guilt of Philotas and the others, the conspirators were stoned, Parmenion was assassinated, and Alexander Lyncestes was executed after three years of imprisonment.3 The quick verdict and sketchy evidence used in Philotas’ conviction later affected different conspirators’ approach to both assassinating and warning Alexander, notably in the example of the basileus paiges.
Quintus Curius Rufus provides several reasons which motivated the mutinous plots against Alexander. While on trial Hegalochus, a conspirator with the paiges, shouted his desire to eliminate Alexander for the following: Alexander’s adoption of Persian mannerisms, his belittling of Philip II’s and the army’s contributions, the oppression Alexander enforced on the Macedonian victors of his conquest while allowing the losers a lighter yoke of burden, and Alexander’s demand of prokinesis. With the conquest of Persia complete, Alexander began acting like a master over slaves which free Macedonians naturally rejected.
While Plutarch focuses on character and Quintus Curius Rufus studies social and political factors, Arrian preserves a militaristic viewpoint which minimizes his comments on Philotas’ trial but allows for a fuller analysis of the effects on the army as the conspiracies continued. Philotas had commanded a large portion of the Companion cavalry, but after his execution, Alexander no longer permitted any one general to control such a large portion of his troops and consequently split Philotas’ old squadrons between Hephastion and Cleitus the Black.
The consistency throughout the sources of Alexander’s learning of the plot assists in its factuality; modern authors concur. Although the causes for the conspiracies mesh nicely in the ancient sources, a Macedonian social tradition that escapes ancient authors’ attention; Macedonian kings normally died by assassination or in battle. This bloody tradition helped motivate Alexander’s later paranoia about conspiracy.4 As Alexander went further east, the toils of the campaign increased while the rewards shrunk. The resulting rigors inflamed resentment in the army.
Alexander changed several policies in the wake of Philotas’ trial. His paranoia began to express itself both through Philotas’ death as well as Parmenion’s, which was more for what might be done than any disloyal action previous to the assassination. This paranoid killing spree eventually eliminated all capable heirs to Alexander’s throne and terrified the remaining commanders into submission since outspokenness against Alexander meant risking his anger. Modern authors also agree with the ancients that Alexander’s mistrust of generals forced him to break military units further among commanders to minimize the impact a general would have in attempts to oust Alexander.
Each ancient source contributes to the overall comprehension of Philotas’ trial through different author’s focuses on varied topics. Plutarch contributes significantly in understanding Philotas’ character and interaction with the other officers around him. While explaining the history leading up to the event with sufficient detail, Plutarch neglects the conflicts of the trial itself. Quintus Curius Rufus thoroughly explains each step progressively throughout the event but lacks any defined consequences other than the immediate. Arrian, the opposite of Quintus Curius Rufus, neatly generalizes the entire proceedings up to Philotas’ execution and carefully analyzes the results of the verdict both on the army as a whole as well as on Alexander himself. By neglecting even one of these sources in analyzing any event in Alexander’s life, key information is lost and bias in the authors’ focus is emphasized whether in reference to politics, military, or psychology.
History is composed of the lives and actions of billions of people. Analysis of history should call upon multiple sources and different accounts wherever possible to make full use the lessons of the past have on the present.
1 Rufus and Plutarch concur on the order of events leading up to Philotas’ trial. Philotas rejected the information because it came from the brother of a male prostitute during a quarrel between lovers.
2 Alexander’s main accusation of Philotas was guilt through silence. Philotas knew of his condemnation before the verdict since he gave his defense in chains, and Alexander, while present for the accusations, left during Philotas’ defense, signifying a lack of an aquittal.
3 Since “Philip was safer in combat than in the theatre: often avoiding the hands of his enemies, he could not escape those of his own people,” Alexander attempted to protect himself from possible threats.
4 Because “Great men have often met their ends at the hands of insignificant agents or even for relatively minor causes,” Alexander can be justified for executing Philotas for negligence.
1 Rufus and Plutarch concur on the order of events leading up to Philotas’ trial. Philotas rejected the information because it came from the brother of a male prostitute during a quarrel between lovers.
2 Alexander’s main accusation of Philotas was guilt through silence. Philotas knew of his condemnation before the verdict since he gave his defense in chains, and Alexander, while present for the accusations, left during Philotas’ defense, signifying a lack of an aquittal.
3 Since “Philip was safer in combat than in the theatre: often avoiding the hands of his enemies, he could not escape those of his own people,” Alexander attempted to protect himself from possible threats.
4 Because “Great men have often met their ends at the hands of insignificant agents or even for relatively minor causes,” Alexander can be justified for executing Philotas for negligence.
__
Agatha Tyche
Agatha Tyche
No comments:
Post a Comment