Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

THE ROLE OF THE ARGEADAI 125
and art of the period have recognized a conscious effort on the part
of the rulers to manipulate those media in order to project a selfconstructed
persona that would help cement the acceptance of their
subjects. 16 This rhetoric aimed not only at legitimating the current
king but extended the honors to his family, successors, and ancestors. 17
The representation of a strong dynasty, rooted in both Egyptian and
Hellenic-Macedonian tradition, was a recurring theme in royal propaganda.
As suggested by their titulature and the Pharaonic visual
vocabulary in their portraits, the Ptolemies aspired to be accepted by
their Egyptian subjects as the legitimate successors of the Pharaohs. 18
For their Hellenic-Macedonian subjects and the rival Hellenistic
kingdoms, links with the Hellenic and Argead past appear to have
mattered in claims for legitimation.
This paper aims to explore the use and importance of Argead
references in early Ptolemaic claims for dynastic legitimation. Particularly
relevant in this context are the associations with Alexander
and the construction of genealogies. Both involve the making of
dynastic claims through the exploitation of recognizable symbols.
Further, this article will examine the practical role of the Argead
dynasty as a model for early Ptolemaic dynastic organization. By
dynastic organization we will refer to the organization of dynastic
marriages and their signifi cance for the legitimation of the ruler’s position.
It will be argued that although the fi gure of Alexander was and
has been treated as the catalytic source of inspiration for the dynastic
legitimation of Ptolemaic rule, it was not the only one. The early
Ptolemies looked further back into their Argead past, not only for
bolstering their own dynastic signifi cance vis- à-vis their antagonists
but also for drawing paradigms for their dynastic organization.
Alexander
It is the communis opinio of ancient and modern scholarship that the
dynastic legitimacy of the Diadochs stemmed from the manipulation
of their association with Alexander. Such claims were made on the
basis of their personal closeness to the King during his lifetime or by
their imitation of his behavior and regalia posthumously. 19 The
strength of Alexander’s legitimating power in non-Macedonian territory,
like Egypt, rested primarily on two grounds: Alexander provided
the new foreign ruling elite with a link to its Hellenic-Macedonian
past, but most importantly he furnished ties with the land itself. As
the territory was won by Alexander’s spear, Ptolemy I had to devise
ways according to which he could claim to be Alexander’s legitimate