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

174 RECEPTION OF FATHER AND SON
writer, given what he did for Macedonia, than Alexander, who was
present in his kingdom only for two years of his reign, and whose
death marked the disintegration of the Macedonian empire and Macedonia
becoming a pawn in the wars of the successors until the Antigonid
dynasty established itself in the third century. That Alexander
may have been implicated in his father’s assassination did not help
either. At the same time, they were writing when the Romans’ view of
Alexander was being shaped by important changes in politics and
culture that were taking place in republican and early imperial Rome.
Thanks to these, Alexander had become a “Roman construct, a product
of Roman sensibilities and worldview,” 38 and he was the “archetype
for monarchy and charismatic autocracy” 39 because of Roman
attitudes to Greek kingship. Although Philip himself had works
written about him (Theopompus’ Philippica being the obvious
example, and of course Trogus’ account of the same title), and hence
was known to a Roman audience, he was not subject to the same shift
of reinterpretation as his more famous son. This was because
Alexander excited the imagination more, given his spectacular military
achievements, which put Philip in their shadow. Diodorus and
Trogus/Justin, however, rightly shone the spotlight on Philip as being
the better ruler for Macedonia. The great conqueror did not make the
better king.
Diodorus and Trogus/Justin constructed a deliberately styled juxtaposition
of Philip and Alexander in their accounts of their reigns.
Both have a higher opinion of Philip than of Alexander, which was
based not so much on mere exploits, but on the nature of kingship
and what makes a good king. While few people today would eulogize
Alexander as the rosy, heroic fi gure of a Tarn or a Lane Fox, 40 especially
when we consider him not as just a general but as a king, our
ancient writers were also concerned with presenting and representing
as correct an image of Alexander, and of his father, as historically
possible—and so should we. To them (and the Roman audience), it
would seem, setting up a future worldwide empire was more important
than completing that glorious enterprise. Perhaps the norm of
referring to the fourth century as the age of Alexander should be adjusted
and it would be better to call that century the age of Philip and
Alexander.