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

IN THE SHADOW OF HIS FATHER 27
grievances makes it diffi cult to know whether he relies on a noncontemporary
tradition of Alexander as a stereotypical tyrant corrupted
by fortune, or on the reports of an eyewitness. However, keeping in
mind that Alexander’s multiethnic policy had strong effects on the
political infl uence of the nobility, it is probable that the main features
of the speech are authentic.
This being so, it is the communis opinio that Hermolaus’ speech
mirrors the thoughts and resentments of the Macedonian opposition
at this time quite well. 19 Many Macedonians had become aware of the
differences between Alexander’s and Philip’s reign, drew a comparison,
and judged Alexander by their idealized memories of Philip’s
political style. Even though these memories were faulty, they could
well justify the representation of Alexander as a degenerate ruler. The
event leading to Hermolaus’ conspiracy may underline this. This prologue
to the main event was uncontroversial and probably reported in
similar terms by all sources. 20 The royal youths usually accompanied
the Macedonian ruler on the hunt and took part in this privileged
aristocratic activity. During a boar hunt, Hermolaus killed a wild boar
Alexander was about to dispatch. The ruler fl ew in a great rage and
ordered that Hermolaus be fl ogged and even deprived of his horse. 21
Feeling humiliated, Hermolaus wanted to take revenge.
According to the communis opinio, this feeling of humiliation
caused by the punishment of public fl ogging combined with Hermolaus’
wish to regain his personal honor or the honor of the royal
youths in general is to be seen as the main motive for the conspiracy. 22
However, there is evidence that the royal youths were accustomed to
severe punishments for misconduct and negligence. 23 According to
Curtius, the fl ogging of basilikoi paides was consistent with Macedonian
nomoi, and traditionally administered only by the ruler. 24
More importantly, there is evidence that even Philip II, who at this
time already had become the glorifi ed counter-image of his son in the
eyes of the aristocratic opposition, punished disobedient royal youths
severely. 25 So Alexander’s order to fl og the youth could not be perceived
as a new feature of his orientalizing policy exposing him as
un-Macedonian or as an extraordinarily degrading punishment. Arrian
reports that Hermolaus was angry because of Alexander’s hybris. 26 In
Greek political thought, hybris is traditionally attributed to tyrants.
Therefore again, it is unlikely that Hermolaus referred to the traditional
fl ogging. 27 It might rather have been the removal of the horse that raised
his anger and became the principal motivation for the conspiracy.
To ascertain that Hermolaus’ horse was the key symbol of the confl
ict described between ruler and royal youth, we must fi rst consider
the role of the horse in Macedonian aristocratic society and its cultural