The Murder of Philip II, King of Macedonia
Michael Bishop 10/14/01
In 336 BCE, Philip II, King of Macedonia, Archon of the Koinon of Thessaly, and Strategos Autokrater of the Amphyctionic League, was brutally stabbed to death by a former lover and bodyguard, Pausanias, at the wedding of Philip’s daughter, Cleopatra, to his brother-in-law, Alexander of Epirus. Of this, Diordorus of Sicily said, “Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods” (Diordorus, 16.95, pg 19). Of course, this was exactly the problem. Philip’s Kingdom was the most powerful of the “Greek” states. This, along with Philip’s dealings with his family and others, leaves a dearth of suspects that are implicated in his murder. For over 2,000 years, scholars have argued back and forth about the “true” culprits in the assassination. However, when one analyzes the data available, one suspect in particular, pushes the rest into the background. One of Philip’s generals, Attalus, the uncle of Philip’s newest wife, Cleopatra (and great-uncle to her unborn child), one of the more powerful men surrounding Philip, had quite a bit to gain (including the throne) from this assassination. Attalus had connections with the Athenians, and through them the Persians. Attalus also had connections to Philip’s bodyguards through his brother-in-law, Perdiccas (Pausanias’s fellow Oresteian). All of these factors add up to point to Attalus as the man behind the king’s death. Attalus had quite a bit to gain in the assassination of Philip II. Cleopatra, Attalus’s niece, had recently been married to Philip II, and had already had one child, a girl named Europa. The key, however, was that she was pregnant with another child, ostensibly a boy. In fact, Diodorus claims, “…Cleopatra had borne a child to Philip a few days before his death” (Diodorus, 7.2, pg 19). Also, we have the line in Pausanias, Book VIII, that
“…when he [Philip] died Olympias took his baby son, the child of Attalos’s niece Kleopatra, and murdered the child and the mother together by dragging them on to a bronze oven filled with fire…” This child had the potential to replace Alexander as heir to Philip’s throne, mainly because this prince would be the child of Philip and a noble of Macedonian birth (Cleopatra) whereas Alexander’s mother, Olympias, was from Epirus. Even though some other sources claim Cleopatra had yet to give birth, this does not necessarily preclude the determination of the gender. In ancient Egypt, women would urinate daily into a bowl containing emmer and barley seeds. If neither grew, she was not pregnant, if barley grew, she would have a boy, and if emmer grew, she would have a girl (Marie Parsons: Childbirth and Children in Ancient Egypt; www.touregypt.net). Considering the amount of trade between Egypt and Greece that existed at the time, it is very possible that such a technique would have found its way north. Also, there were a multitude of other tests to determine a child’s gender (not to mention a prediction by an oracle). So, regardless, it is completely conceivable that the Philip’s court was already convinced that the gender of the child was male. If Cleopatra bore a male child, and if both Philip and Alexander were killed (or removed from the picture), that child would be king of Macedonia. This would allow Attalus to simply step in a regent, most likely with the backing of the Macedonian aristocracy, who were not pleased with some of Philip’s reforms. Attalus had clearly seen the potential for a son of his niece to supplant Alexander as heir, and had in fact indicated that this should be the case, in a drunken utterance, at the wedding of Cleopatra and Philip. “Cleopatra’s uncle Attalus, who had drunk too much at the banquet, called upon the Macedonians to pray to the gods that the union of Philip and Cleopatra might bring
forth a legitimate heir to the throne” (Plutarch, Age of Alexander, 7.9, pg 5). This account is supported by one that is almost identical, put forth by Athenaeus (Athenaeus, Philosopher’s Banquet, pg 26). There is some evidence that Attalus had become a threat to Philip earlier. For instance, when Pausanias goes to Philip to complain of his mistreatment at Attalus’s hands, according to Diordorus seemed almost afraid of Attalus’s power. “Philip shared his [Pausanias] anger at the barbarity of the act but did not with to punish Attalus at that time because of their relationship, and because Attalus’s services were needed urgently” (Diordorus, 16.93, pg 18). There is also Philip’s pattern of behavior to be considered. Athenaeus said, “Yet Philip always married a new wife with each new war he undertook” (Athenaeus, Philosophers’ Banquet, pg 26). One can infer from this that Philip often entered into marriage alliances with potential enemies (such as Epirus, until he married Olympias) and defeated foes to cement them with Macedonia and to discourage any treachery. We can then postulate that Philip would have carried this into intraMacedonian politics, and had married that niece of an over-ambitious general to keep him in check. It is clear from historical sources that Attalus had been in communication with Demosthenes, who urged him to betray his king. In fact, Attalus attempted to use the letters that Demosthenes had written him as proof of his innocence of Philip’s murder. He turned such letters over to Alexander, as a show of good faith, thinking that this would place him in the clear, as no guilty person would turn over such proof of treachery. Of course, the source does indicate that Attalus had indeed intended treachery and then
changed his mind. However, it is fairly clear that Alexander did not believe that Attalus was innocent of these charges.
Here immediately after the death of Philip, Attalus actually had set his hand to revolt and had agreed with the Athenians to undertake joint action against Alexander, but later he changed his mind. Preserving the letter, which had been brought to him from Demosthenes, he sent it off to Alexander and tried by expressions of loyalty to remove from himself any possible suspicion. Hecataeus, however, following the instructions of the king (Alexander) literally, had him killed by treachery, and thereafter the Macedonian forces in Asia were free from any incitement to revolution, Attalus being dead and Parmenion completely devoted to Alexander. (Diordorus, 17.5, pg 20)
Alexander had even stated later, “Attalus, you remember, posed a threat to my life before my accession” (Rufus, 8.7, pg 13). Attalus apparently had been attempting to consolidate his power over his troops, ensuring that their loyalty was to him alone. Attalus “… had acquired great popularity in the army by his readiness to do favors and his easy bearing with the soldiers” (Diodorus 17.2, pg 19). One must ask if Attalus intended no treachery, why was he attempting to bribe his soldiers? Attalus’s forces were positioned at the Hellespont, presumably guarding the passage, while Parmenio’s column moved deeper into Asia-minor. This put Attalus troops, who were loyal solely to him, in a great position to move back into Macedonia to take control in the aftermath of the assassination. With Parmenio’s soldiers out of the way, Attalus would only have to face opposition of the forces under the control of Antipater. We also have further proof of Demosthenes’s complicity by the fact that he somehow managed to receive advanced warning of Philip’s death, and used it for his political advantage (Plutarch, 5.22, pg 15). Since news of the death of the king of the most powerful state in Greece would have been sent out almost immediately, the only apparent way for Demosthenes to have known was to have known of the plot to kill him (unless of course you believe that he truly did have a dream sent by the gods to inform him of this fortuitous news). Demosthenes was known to have connections with Darius III of Persia.
For the fame of this speaker had traveled even to the Persian king, who had sent letters to the satraps on the coast ordering them to offer money to Demosthenes and to pay more attention to him than to any other Greek, since he could create a diversion and keep the king of Macedon busy at home by means of all the troubles he stirred up in Greece. This intelligence was discovered long afterwords by Alexander, who found in Sardis letters from Demosthenes and papers belonging to the king’s generals and containing details of the sums of money which had been given to him. (Plutarch, 5.20, pg 14 – 15)
Diordorus concurs with this assumption in book XVII, chapter 4 (pg 20), when he states, “He [Demosthenes] was generally believed to have received large sums of money from that source in payment for his efforts to check the Macedonians…” This gives a money trail to follow from Attalus to Demosthenes to Darius. Alexander believed that the Persians had a hand in Philip’s death, and voiced his belief in a correspondence with Darius, he said, “Everyone knows that my father, Philip, was murdered by assassins whom your people had seduced with the expectation of a huge Persian reward” (Rufus, 4.12, pg 11). Note the plural of assassin, which implies that Pausanias did not act alone. We also have Arrian’s account that Darius had sent Amyntas, who had fled to Persia following Philip’s death, to seek out Alexander the Lyncestrian, and to bribe him with the throne of Macedonia and 1,000 talents to murder Alexander (Arrian, 1.25, pg 8). It would stand to reason that Darius would have come up with this plan earlier in an attempt to use Attalus to kill Philip. Now that Attalus’s connections with Demosthenes and Darius have been shown, and now that his potential motives have been stated, we must address how Attalus was able to put the assassination into motion, as he was many hundreds of miles away near the Bosporus. There are some interesting irregularities about the assassination that sheds some light on this. Attalus’s plans would not have much chance of succeeding if Alexander was able to take command of Macedonia soon after his father’s death. In fact, any attempt by Attalus to take power would be greatly hindered by a live Alexander III. It
is interesting to note that at the last moment, before they were to walk out into the open at the wedding ceremony, Philip motioned back his guards. “…and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him and followed only at a distance…” (Diodorus, 16.93, pg 18). Diodorus also records, “…Philip directed his attending friends to precede him into the theatre, while the guards kept their distance…” (Diodorus, 16.94, pg 18). Justin indicates that this was an unusual occurrence, since he refers to Philip arriving “without his escort of body guards” (Justin, 9.6, pg 21). Philip was only escorted by Alexander III and Alexander the Lyncestrian who were following behind. If Philip had stuck to his usual routine, Pausanias, being a bodyguard himself, would have been able to strike at both Philip and Alexander (who would have been standing close together), killing both before attempting his escape. The only thing stopping this was a last minute decision by Philip, which would have been unknown to Attalus. Likewise, had either Alexander had plotted this, they would have had a hard time explaining why they simply stood right next to Philip as Pausanias killed him and did nothing, since they too, would have been unaware of Philip’s last second grandstanding. Another interesting quirk of the assassination was that Perdiccas, another bodyguard, led several others after Pausanias as he attempted escape. By all reports, Perdiccas was one of the first, if not the first, who came upon Pausanias, after he had tripped, and killed him. “As he [Pausanias] was scrambling to his feet, Perdiccas and the rest came up with him and killed him with their javelins” (Diodorus, 16.94, pg 19). This act of retaliation silenced the one man who would have been able to say if anyone else had been part of the conspiracy. The interesting part is that both Perdiccas and Leonnatus (another bodyguard who went with Perdiccas) were both Oresteians like Pausanias, and
Perdiccas was Attalus’s brother-in-law (Diodorus 16, pg 19). It would have been strange for Perdiccas not to be very familiar, if not friendly, with Pausanias, as they were both from the same canton from aristocratic families and both members of the bodyguard. Attalus would have used Perdiccas to incite Pausanias to murder Philip and Alexander over Philip’s inability or refusal to punish Attalus for his treatment of Pausanias. It would then be up to Perdiccas to silence Pausanias before he could say who put him up to the deed. The fact that Attalus had violated Pausanias, and that Pausanias held such a burning hatred for him, provided Attalus with a nearly perfect defense. He could merely say that there was no way Pausanias would work for him and have other believe it, while the entire time he was working through his brother-in-law. Only because of Pausanias’s failure to kill Alexander as well as Philip, did Attalus’s plan fail. Philip II of Macedonia fell victim to intrigue that had wormed its way into his court. Attalus, one of Philip’s highest ranked generals, with the backing of Darius and Demosthenes, used his brother-in-law to manipulate Pausanias into killing the king. All of this was done so that Attalus might gain the throne through the male child of his niece and Philip. Ultimately his plan failed, and he lost, not only his life, but also the lives of his niece and her two children, when he failed to convince Alexander of his innocence in any duplicity. Aeschines said this of Demosthenes, but his words can easily be applied to the behavior of Attalus in his lust for power. He said, “At the moment, it is true, his extravagance has been glutted by the king’s gold, but even this will not satisfy him; no wealth has ever proved sufficient for a greedy character” (Diodorus, 17.4, pg 20).