#Second Sophistic

[jeannereames]

Dr. Reames, hello! It's great to be able to ask you things here, and thank you very much for taking the time to answer them. I was reading Ian Worthington's By the Spear, which inspires this ask.

Alexander the Great is one of those historical figures who have cemented themselves in general culture. Almost everyone knows who he was. My question, however, is about his father, king Philip II. I understand that historiography has privileged Alexander for a long time. But it seems like another current is re-evaluating the reign of Philip II in comparison to his son's, to reach the conclusion that Philip II was in fact the greatest ruler among them.

The argument goes (or implies, or presuposes) that it was Philip II's military prowess and accomplishments that built the Kingdom of Macedonia to a position where the conquest of the Persian Empire was made possible. If not for Philip II's work on the hegemony of Greece, and creating a strong, centralized Macedonian State, Alexander wouldn't have had the necessary conditions for the invasion of Asia.

And the argument goes on to say that while Philip II left a stronger than ever Macedonia, Alexander's reign brought just as much chaos as it brought glory: the Argead Dynasty would soon be extinct, and the realm divided between the diadochi.

First, would you say Philip II's history was overshadowed by Alexander's, and did that affect the historiography of his reign? Second, do you think this view of Philip II's reign (if it new new at all) is warranted, and Alexander's conquests depended on his father's previous success?

“The Greatest of the Kings of Europe”: Philip of Macedon

I open with that assessment from Diodoros (16.95.1). I should note that he named Philip that because Alexander, of course, called himself “King of Asia.”

The debate as to whether father or son was greater isn’t new. It raged in antiquity, too. As part of the philhellenic project of the Second Sophistic, Plutarch styled Alexander as a great conqueror and bringer of (Greek) civilization, due to his superior (Greek) culture and paideia. Philip (and later Darius) function as Alexander’s barbarian foils. Plutarch resurrects standard 4th-century rhetoric that posited Philip’s success as due to luck, not skill, strategy, or virtue. Arrian, who also wrote during the Second Sophistic but is not counted specifically among those rhetoricians, is not so blunt-knuckled about it, but he certainly highlights Alexander’s Greek virtues.

In contrast, Lucian—who, interestingly, is also a member of the Second Sophistic—preferences Philip, which he makes abundantly clear in Dialogues of the Dead: Philip vs. Alexander (12), then Demosthenes vs. Alexander (13). In both, he mocks Alexander’s claim of divinity, even though his dead-Alexander admits it was all a political ruse. Curtius Rufus also has issues with Alexander, and Justin didn’t like either Alexander or his father. For his detractors, Alexander’s success is also attributed to luck (Tychē/Fortuna), not skill or virtue—a theme that resurrects itself in a number of modern assessments.

I think the tendency to pit father and son against each other in modern scholarship merely reflects the ancient tendency, as well as, perhaps, the human desire for zero-sum competition.

Instead, we should look at how later Macedonian monarchs built on the successes of previous kings, or sometimes failed to live up to them. This is the approach I take when teaching either my undergrad ATG and the Macedonian Origin class, or my Argead grad seminar. Was there never any interfamilial competition? Well, looking at how Argeads tended to murder each other, of course there was. But that was between living relatives. If we consider Alexander’s own career, he seemed to be in competition with Herakles or Dionysos, as much as with Philip. That suggests “competition” was (like copycatting) a form of flattery.

So yes, Alexander wouldn’t have been half as great if his father hadn’t handed him a trained and seasoned army with unique and highly effective tactics—plus a (mostly) unified Greece in his rear. But Philip wouldn’t have had space to experiment with those new tactics had his brother Perdikkas III not made him archon of a Macedonian canton. Nor would he have had a place to start updating the army if both Archelaos and earlier, Alexandros I, had not begun to implement Greek hoplite divisions, the use of cavalry, as well as improved military infrastructure such as new roads, forts, etc. Not to mention Alexandros I used the Persian invasion to expand Macedon’s borders and absorb what would come to constitute “Lower Macedonia.”

Even Amyntas, Philip and Perdikkas’ father, while arguably a weak king, had managed to right the ship and stay in power for an extended period after the chaos following the murder of Archelaos. He (and Eurydike) raised three boys who didn’t try to murder each other when their father died (although Philip, at least, had to eliminate half-brothers).

Each king’s successes from at least Alexandros I forward (c. 497?-450? BCE)* led to the improvement of the Macedonian kingdom, with the exception of turmoil between Archelaos and Amyntas III.

If nobody (except perhaps Alexandros I) could be placed on a par with either Philip II or Alexander III, those two wouldn’t have amounted to much if not for earlier Argead kings. And whatever Philip handed to Alexander, Alexander had to know how to use it—and improve on it. Many a talented father has left everything to a son who failed to secure his father’s legacy.

Did Alexander’s extraordinary success suppress his father’s memory? Yes, undoubtably. See the little infographic below to get a sense of just what Philip managed:

But again, I think we must resist arguing that Philip was really the greater of the two, as a form of reactionism.** A reminder of what Alexander managed:

Although his conquests are ALSO overblown, so a reminder in a larger, more global context:

What I see here is a RARE case where a wildly successful father managed to raise an even more wildly successful son, at least by ancient criteria. I think it's fair to ask whether conquest should be regarded as "success," but that's a discussion for another post. In ancient terms, yes, Alexander was extraordinary.

In history, that sort of back-to-back success just doesn’t happen much. I’d like to give them both due credit, as well as recognize that both built on the work of kings before them. Neither Alexander nor Philip sprang, fully armed, from the head of Zeus. Sitting back there in the shadows are Alexandros I, Perdikkas II, and Archelaos.

And, by the way, I dare say the shade of Philip was very proud of his son.

——————-

*Whatever you may read on the Internets, we have neither a secure accession nor death date for Alexandros I. He was king by 497 BCE, before the first Greco-Persian War, and dead by 450. It’s really the best we can say.

** Richard Gabriel, Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander (Washington DC, 2010). Which is actually a rather good book in terms of showcasing Philip’s accomplishments, but feels overly strident at times in an attempt to elevate Philip over Alexander.

[discofama]

I love how comfortable Adam and Lute are around each other.

I mean, look at this

So they're casually together during the extermination, much like how friends gravitate towards each other when in an event even if they're not talking or doing anything, just because it feels easier than being alone. Or perhaps Lute flew closer because she saw the huge war machine approaching Adam and got a little worried.

Charlie and Vaggie are going to attack them, and look at what they do:

Despite being Adam the one closer to Vaggie, he doesn't move an inch. They don't say anything (besides the shit talk) and Adam doesn't even look at her, he expects Lute will take care of Vaggie with no order from him, even if he's closer.

Obviously Adam is confident and doesn't think Vaggie can hurt him at all, but he clearly trusts Lute to get her out of the way. He probably knows how bloodthirsty Lute is for Vaggie and lets her have her without a word, and Lute complies, again, without a word, leaving him to handle the strongest of the enemies at that moment (Charlie).

So in this second, Adam and Lute communicated in silence. Adam didn't move and trusted her to cut in even if it was him the one under attack, and finally Lute trusted him to handle Charlie so she could fight Vaggie, as she didn't seem worried at all of the possibility of Charlie coming to protect her girlfriend.

They're in harmony. They're just natural together.

He lets her grab him like this and is willing to listen to her. It's clear he respects her and deep down appreciates that she'll keep him from doing something stupid, even if he whines.

She also climbs him? Lol. (Look at how she holds onto his arm 🥹 she's super comfortable with touching him!)

They're always hyping each other up, like in their songs:

(Look at Lute's smug face here 👇, she's sooo satisfied with what Adam's saying)

I honestly believe that they kinda make each other worse, that neither of them would be SO mean all the time if they didn't have the other: a companion who is always backing them up, who agrees on any crap that comes out of their mouth (Lute lets him talk shit about random women and nods, Adam goes along with Lute's homophobia despite seeming to not care that much about homosexuals).

Many portray Lute being a lot smarter than Adam, but I think they're both dumbasses. I mean, we laugh at Adam for saying he never made a mistake in his fucking life, but it was Lute who first stated angels don't make mistakes, somehow keeping a serious face. I think Lute seems smart because she's more quiet and cares about the rules, but she doesn't do logic very well either and can be impulsive too, as shown in the end of ep. 1.

They're probably each other's best/only friend, because they're just so unlikeable. And it makes sense they'd deeply care for one another. They care about that person that stands them and agrees with them and actually enjoys being with them. They're always seen together, hanging out even off duty. They clearly have a lot of fun.

I'll be honest. I ship GuitarSpear, I love it, but I don't know if I want it to be canon for 2 reasons:

1. Lute might be a lesbian.

She is so repulsed by homosexuals that it feels personal. Talking about how disgusting and blasphemous Charlie and Vaggie's love is, or how many cocks were in Angel's mouth and calling him a whore. She cares too much about it for it to not be personal, and I think it makes sense that she'd be a closet lesbian with a shit ton of internalized homophobia. She probably knew about Vaggie's sexuality and held a lot of resentment towards her before tearing off her wings. Maybe she was even attracted to her and was so repulsed about it that she redirected her self-hatred to Vaggie.

2. I think it could be better for Adam's character.

Let's just think about it. This character has a very distorted view of women, he has a fixation on them and hypersexualizes them. So the idea of this horny man, who always sees women with sex colored glasses, being good friends with a hot female below him in the hierarchy with no sexual or romantic interest whatsoever is nice to me. It'd work as sort of a redeeming quality in regards of his relationship with women, and I personally think this man is very redeemable. Let's hope he gets a second chance!

Still! All of this trust and comfort and team feelings can be read as romantic and I certainly wouldn't mind if it becomes canon! They could be the best villain couple!

Summarizing, these two are soulmates, end of the story. They're worse together, but also probably provide the other of a very needed company.

I have no clue if Adam will actually come back, but if he doesn't, I'll feel very bad for Lute. Yeah, yeah, she's an evil bitch, I don't care.

[bumblecow]

Idw Soundwave (and energon tea?) sketch

[jemmo]

i finally got the time to watch love is better the second time around and im not at all shocked that im obsessed with the adult second chance at love jbl - have you met me.

but it also needs to be known that shiraishi is my beloved, the actor plays this role so perfectly and i want my bitchy sad gay to find true love

[determinedowl23]

LOSING MY MIND RN

[faunandfloraas]

comment on the talker being like Wow these talker series get more and more artistic, sophisticated... the cinematography, better and better.

[stinkybrowndogs]

I think the funniest quality we have bred into dogs is the "bring it back" gene

[naelmasn]

mom venat

[justarandomlambblog]

Hehehe

[raplinesmoon]

whoever styled BTS at the Grammys in 2020 I hope your pillow is cold on both sides

[caramellashton]

Professor luke unlocked 🔓

[jeannereames]

Do you think we lost useful / important information along with the account / biography Ptolemy Soter wrote of Alexander? Could you talk a bit about this book?

If I recall correctly (and I can be very wrong in this) Arrian used Ptolemy’s book as one of his main primary sources. Did any bits of it survive that are useful to modern historians?

@akriticsongs, first, yes, Arrian used Ptolemy, along with Arisobulos, as his two chief sources for his own history. These weren’t all he used, and he certainly editorialized on them, giving his own opinions throughout. We shouldn’t take his history as a “cut-and-paste” version of theirs. That makes getting back to theirs a bit of a struggle.

One reason Arrian gives for using Ptolemy is that he was a king, and it wouldn’t do for a king to lie.

That assessment may make modern historians crack up laughing—as it should. But we must also recognize that Arrian isn’t simply being obtuse; his history was written to flatter his patron—the Emperor Hadrian. A king. Not just a king, but a king with a noted fondness for Greek culture and Greek philosophy—the first emperor to wear a beard after Greek fashion.

Was Arrian being serious about his claim? Well…probably not, although he also wasn’t playing the same sort of inside-out “I’m going to compliment you in order to insult you” games Virgil played with Augustus in his The Aeneid. Nonetheless, and whatever he says, I doubt he took Ptolemy’s history entirely uncritically.

I am not an expert on Arrian. There have been a couple of really good assessments of Arrian as an historian published recently: V. Liotsakis’s Alexander the Great in Arrian’s Anabasis (2019) and D. W. Leon’s Arrian the Historian: Writing the Greek Past in the Roman Empire (2021). The links go to their Bryn Mawr reviews. The former is more inclined to analysis of passages while the latter casta a wider net to place Arrian in context as a historian. I like both, as they do different things.

Getting back to Ptolemy’s original, Tim Howe speculated that Ptolemy was influenced by Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern tradition in the book we coedited, Macedonian Legacies (2009), “Alexander in India: Ptolemy as Near Eastern Historiographer.” And more recently, he edited an entire collection, Ptolemy I Soter: a Self-Made Man (ed., Tim Howe, 2018).

It’s too bad we don’t still have Ptolemy’s original history, for two reasons. It would be the only surviving contemporary account, and it could illustrate how later Roman-era historians parsed and refitted earlier histories to their own takes.

My personal first choice of Hellenistic-era writings I’d like to see recovered would be Marsyas’s works on ancient Macedonia (and Alexander). But after that would be Ptolemy’s history. Both would provide us with pre-Roman views of Macedon and Alexander. We don’t have that. The first Macedonian writing about Alexander (et al.) that survives (Strategemata) is late imperial military historian Polyaenus, who wrote a little after Arrian (during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, not Hadrian). There are recent debates as to whether he’s really Macedonian, but even if he was, c. 500 years separated him from his country’s most famous son. And if he calls himself a Macedonian, he was born and raised in Bithynia, and later lived in Rome, so how “Macedonian” he was would be a good question to ask. Like a lot of writers of or influenced by the Second Sophistic, he engaged in a fair bit of Hellenic beautification.

So the upshot is: yes, having Ptolemy’s history would be extremely useful, but even if we did, it would bring a different freight to problems to navigate. It might, however, help us to better assess the later Roman-era historians we do have.

[therealallenklein]

Got through the album listening on my drives today and, now knowing of and having heard the second half of songs (really fantastic ones in there), I’ll give it an 8/10. I love you it’s ruining my life.

[tomatoart]

TASHA TOYAH - UNDERTOWNS CFO

[thiefnessman]

I'm not "pro AI in fandom" I'm very much anti-AI in fandom and I literally said this? at the beginning of my reblog? I was literally just trying to say that your fics are not in as much danger as the post makes it out to be.

[martyrbat]

begging fandom to stop and reflect on why you infantilize characters that are optimistic and why you associate it as a trait that makes you an idiot