Ptolemy
10-05-2006, 09:35 AM
Since many like to make comparisons between Philip II and his son Alexander, i was reading Justin and his view (or could be general view at his time) of Alexander and Philip. It is interesting the last paragraph, making a comparison between them.
Justin 9.8.7- 21
Philip died at the age of 47 after a reign of 25 years. By a dancer from Larissa he had a son, Arrhidaeus, who was king after Alexander, and he also fathered many other children from the different wives which he had, as kings do. Some of these died of natural causes, others violently. He was a king with more enthusiasm for the military than the convivial sphere; [U] in his view his greatest treasures were the tools of warfare. He had a greater talent for acquiring wealth than keeping it, and thus despite his daily pillaging he was always insolvent. His compassion and his duplicity were qualities which he prized equally, and no means of gaining a victory would he consider dishonourable. He was charming and treacherous at the same time, the type to promise more in conversation than he would deliver, and whether the discussion was serious or light-hearted he was an artful performer. He cultivated friendships with a view to expediency rather than from genuine feelings. His usual practice was to feign warm feelings when he hated someone, to sow discord between parties that were in agreement and then try to win the favour of both- Besides this he was possessed of eloquence and a remarkable oratorical talent, full of subtlety and ingenuity, so that his elegant style was not lacking fluency, nor his fluency lacking stylistic elegance,
Philip was succeeded by his son Alexander who surpassed his father both In good qualities and bad. Each had his own method of gaining victory, Alexander making war openly and Philip using trickery; the latter took pleasure in duping the enemy, the former in putting them to flight in the open. Philip was the more prudent strategist, Alexander had the greater vision. The father could hide, and sometimes even suppress, his anger; when Alexander's had flared up, his retaliation could be neither delayed nor kept in check. Both were excessively fond of drink, but intoxication brought out different shortcomings- It was the father's habit to rush straight at the enemy from the dinner-party, engage him in combat and recklessly expose himself to danger; Alexander's violence was directed not against the enemy but against his own comrades- As a result Philip was often brought back from his battles wounded while the other often left a dinner with his friends' blood on his hands, Philip was unwilling to rule along with his friends; Alexander exercised his rule over his. The father preferred to be loved, the son to be feared. comparable interest in literature. The father had greater shrewdness the son was truer to his word. Philip was more restrained in his language and discourse, Alexander in his actions- When it came to showing mercy to the defeated, the son was temperamentally more amenable and more magnanimous. The father was more disposed to thrift, the son to extravagance, With such qualities did the father lay the basis for a worldwide empire and the son bring to completion the glorious enterprise.
So what are your views about the character and exploits of the father and son? Do you agree or disagree with Justin's points?
Justin 9.8.7- 21
Philip died at the age of 47 after a reign of 25 years. By a dancer from Larissa he had a son, Arrhidaeus, who was king after Alexander, and he also fathered many other children from the different wives which he had, as kings do. Some of these died of natural causes, others violently. He was a king with more enthusiasm for the military than the convivial sphere; [U] in his view his greatest treasures were the tools of warfare. He had a greater talent for acquiring wealth than keeping it, and thus despite his daily pillaging he was always insolvent. His compassion and his duplicity were qualities which he prized equally, and no means of gaining a victory would he consider dishonourable. He was charming and treacherous at the same time, the type to promise more in conversation than he would deliver, and whether the discussion was serious or light-hearted he was an artful performer. He cultivated friendships with a view to expediency rather than from genuine feelings. His usual practice was to feign warm feelings when he hated someone, to sow discord between parties that were in agreement and then try to win the favour of both- Besides this he was possessed of eloquence and a remarkable oratorical talent, full of subtlety and ingenuity, so that his elegant style was not lacking fluency, nor his fluency lacking stylistic elegance,
Philip was succeeded by his son Alexander who surpassed his father both In good qualities and bad. Each had his own method of gaining victory, Alexander making war openly and Philip using trickery; the latter took pleasure in duping the enemy, the former in putting them to flight in the open. Philip was the more prudent strategist, Alexander had the greater vision. The father could hide, and sometimes even suppress, his anger; when Alexander's had flared up, his retaliation could be neither delayed nor kept in check. Both were excessively fond of drink, but intoxication brought out different shortcomings- It was the father's habit to rush straight at the enemy from the dinner-party, engage him in combat and recklessly expose himself to danger; Alexander's violence was directed not against the enemy but against his own comrades- As a result Philip was often brought back from his battles wounded while the other often left a dinner with his friends' blood on his hands, Philip was unwilling to rule along with his friends; Alexander exercised his rule over his. The father preferred to be loved, the son to be feared. comparable interest in literature. The father had greater shrewdness the son was truer to his word. Philip was more restrained in his language and discourse, Alexander in his actions- When it came to showing mercy to the defeated, the son was temperamentally more amenable and more magnanimous. The father was more disposed to thrift, the son to extravagance, With such qualities did the father lay the basis for a worldwide empire and the son bring to completion the glorious enterprise.
So what are your views about the character and exploits of the father and son? Do you agree or disagree with Justin's points?