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

246 NOTES TO PAGES 29–31
1988: 389; Hampl 1934: 46–47. Therefore, he could increase his personal
power by his conquests.
44. Arr. Anab. 4.14.2. Cf. Curt. 8.7.4–5.
45. Cf. Heckel 2003: 206.
46. Even though it is not mentioned by Curtius. For demotion, relegation
and exile as Alexander’s tools cf. Carney 1996: 27: “The king’s disapproval
would be a potent weapon.”
47. Cf. Seyer 2007: 86; Carney 2002: 72, n. 49, n. 51.
48. Cf. Raepsaet 2005; Worley 1994: 33, 71. Cf. Nobis 1995: 24.
49. Cf. Worley 1994: 71; Starke 1995: 146–48.
50. Cf. Picard 1986: 67–68, 75; Carney 2002: 60–61; Greenwalt 1993;
Heinrichs and Müller 2008.
51. There is an on-going debate about the fate of Hermolaus’ father
Sopolis. Cf. Bosworth 1980–95: ii, 93; Heckel 2003: 223. It is unclear
whether he should be identifi ed with Sopolis who had been passed over
for promotion from ilarch to hipparch (cf. Arr. Anab. 1.2.5) and was sent
home to Macedonia to help with recruitment in the winter of 328/7, or
whether he was sent home after the trial (cf. Curt. 8.7.2). In any case,
Sopolis was dislodged from the court and the political center of Alexander’s
empire. We do not know whether this elimination took place as a
consequence of his son’s conspiracy and execution or happened beforehand
and constituted an additional motive for Hermolaus. There is no
record of Sopolis’ return. Cf. Heckel 2006: 253; 1986b: 300; Carney 1980:
228; Berve 1926: no. 736, 368–69. Curt. 8.7.2 reports that Sopolis was
innocent.
52. Curt. 8.7.1 3: “tu Philippum patrem aversaris .” Cf. Heckel 2003:
214.
53. Curt. 8.1.27; 8.1.30; 8.1.33–36; Plut. Alex. 50.6; Just. 12.6.1–3.
54. Cf. Worthington 2003b: 97; Squillace 2004a: 21–28.
55. Cf. Wirth 1993: 320–21; Heckel 2008: 101–02; Carney 1981: 157,
159.
56. Arr. Anab. 7.8.3. Cf. Arr. Anab. 4.9.9.
57. Cf. Metzler 1975: 449.
58. Cf. Ellis 1981b: 36; Worthington 2003b: 96–97.
59. Cf. Hatzopoulos 1996: 270.
60. Cf. Wirth 1985a: 165; 1989a: 194, n. 8. Cf. Kienast 1973: 244–45.
61. Cf. Worthington 2003b: 97–98.
62. In Macedonia, the legend lived on. According to Plut. Demetr.
42.1–4, Demetrius Poliorcetes had to cope with it. Plutarch reports that
Demetrius offended the Macedonians by giving no audience. They
thought themselves insulted, not ruled, and they called to mind how
Philip had acted.
63. Cf. Carney 2006: 42–43; Müller 2006: 267–68; Wirth 1985c: 98.