Alexander recognizes Ptolemy as his half brother

Say Alexander formally recognizes Ptolemy as his half brother regardless of the validity of the claim

How would this impact the succession of the Alexander the Great

Could Ptolemy end up as king of the Macedonian empire
 
Ptolemy is better to be careful so that he is not killed too with Alexander's sons. There would be still civil war and probable collapse of Alexander's empire. But Egypt would get some another dynasty instead Ptolemaic dynasty. Perhaps even new native Egyptian dynasty.
 
That would be an stupid idea, because that would make him his heir. Which means, all Ptolemy needs to do, is kill Alexander, and he would be in charge. Even if Ptolemy did nothing to Alexander, he would be seen as a possible murderer.

On the plus side, his claim to rule would be a lot more legitimate.
 
That would be an stupid idea, because that would make him his heir. Which means, all Ptolemy needs to do, is kill Alexander, and he would be in charge. Even if Ptolemy did nothing to Alexander, he would be seen as a possible murderer.

On the plus side, his claim to rule would be a lot more legitimate.

Also paints one massive target on Ptolemy's back. After they're done with Ptolemy they can just say that Alexander named Ptolemy (not his kids) as his half-brother, thus kids have a right to squat.

And wouldn't this have to take place AFTER Hephaestion's death but BEFORE Alexander's own? That's a pretty narrow window, no?
 
Alexander probably gave little/no thought to what the kingdom would be like after his death. He was focused solely on conquering the world in his own lifetime and crushing any threats to his ambition. Recognizing a powerful general as an heir would require Alexander to be convinced that the end was near, which doesn't sound like something he would do. I'm sure he was convinced, even in his final moments, that he would have a full recovery.

Besides, if I remember correctly, the whole "Ptolemy is Alexander's half-brother" story was a propaganda device invented after Alexander's death. Claiming some sort of special connection to Alexander was necessary when the huge empire was up for grabs by so many powerful men. Robin Waterfield in "Dividing the Spoils" explains that Craterus invented a story about saving Alexander's life and Seleucus claimed to be conceived by Apollo, thus being Alexander's divine nephew. (p. 50)
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Knowing Philippos II, it seems to me that it's very possible that Ptolemaios was indeed his bastard.

Besides, if I remember correctly, the whole "Ptolemy is Alexander's half-brother" story was a propaganda device invented after Alexander's death. Claiming some sort of special connection to Alexander was necessary when the huge empire was up for grabs by so many powerful men. Robin Waterfield in "Dividing the Spoils" explains that Craterus invented a story about saving Alexander's life and Seleucus claimed to be conceived by Apollo, thus being Alexander's divine nephew. (p. 50)

The behaviour described above is most certainly real, but applying it to Ptolemaios ignores that he stands out for not claiming Alexander's legacy, and explicitly didn't aim to gain imperial hegemony. He wisely chose to rule Egypt, accentuating (fabricated) continuity with the Pharaonic past.


Alexander would have killed him years ago if Ptolemy had actually been his half brother.

Alexander was known for weird personal points of honour (and dishonour). He didn't kill Arrhidaios, either, even though the guy could obviously be used as a pawn by any crafty enemy. He occasionally killed people without a truly logical reason, because he felt slighted, and he sometimes let people live even when they could be major threats-- by all accounts because of some particular sense of honour or personal loyalty. @Lalli correctly states that it would make sense to kill all potential threats, based just on the recurring Macedonian theme of messy successions, but we know Alexander didn't do that. He never acted based on what was sensible, but instead based his actions on some internal motivation that apparently wasn't even understood by his contemporaries, and remains subject to interpretation to this day.


Anyway, none of this means that the story is certainly true, but dismissing it out of hand seems far too hasty to me.
 
Knowing Philippos II, it seems to me that it's very possible that Ptolemaios was indeed his bastard.



The behaviour described above is most certainly real, but applying it to Ptolemaios ignores that he stands out for not claiming Alexander's legacy, and explicitly didn't aim to gain imperial hegemony. He wisely chose to rule Egypt, accentuating (fabricated) continuity with the Pharaonic past.




Alexander was known for weird personal points of honour (and dishonour). He didn't kill Arrhidaios, either, even though the guy could obviously be used as a pawn by any crafty enemy. He occasionally killed people without a truly logical reason, because he felt slighted, and he sometimes let people live even when they could be major threats-- by all accounts because of some particular sense of honour or personal loyalty. @Lalli correctly states that it would make sense to kill all potential threats, based just on the recurring Macedonian theme of messy successions, but we know Alexander didn't do that. He never acted based on what was sensible, but instead based his actions on some internal motivation that apparently wasn't even understood by his contemporaries, and remains subject to interpretation to this day.


Anyway, none of this means that the story is certainly true, but dismissing it out of hand seems far too hasty to me.[/USER]


I’m gonna quote my own post on the matter.

[QUOTE="Sertorius126, post: 18350566, member: 116205"]Ptolemy having limited ambitions is a myth. While Antigonus was busy with Seleucus in 310-308 BCE, Ptolemy wasted no time in attempting to seize Greece and possibly Macedonia, since that’s also when he attempted to marry Cleopatra and when he proclaimed himself as Philip II’s illegitimate son. His plans failed due to his unpopularity in Greece and his subsequent defeat at Salamis. He was as much ambitious as all other diadochi, he was simply more patient and cautious than them.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps Alexander had genuine affection for Arrhidaios, but affection or not, Alexander was first and foremost a pragmatist, if he had believed Arrhidaios could have endangered him, he would have killed him right away. Rumor of Ptolemy being Philip’s son only started when Ptolemy himself was in Greece, coincidence? I doubt it. Nobody before then seemed to have ever seen Ptolemy as a Argead, and I doubt any of the other surviving diadiochi ever took his claims seriously, or else they’d have at least attempted to discredit them.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I’m gonna quote my own post on the matter.

That's your view; it doesn't convince me. My reading is that Ptolemaios was very sensible in limiting his ambitions, and never once attempted to posit an imperial claim. His attempt to gain control in Greece was pure opportunism, brought about by the circumstances. He never showed any sign of seeking to claim imperial hegemony, and the way he portrayed his reign didn't allude to anything like that. If he'd vassalised Greece, he'd have been King of Egypt and Greece, instead of just King of Egypt.


Perhaps Alexander had genuine affection for Arrhidaios, but affection or not, Alexander was first and foremost a pragmatist, if he had believed Arrhidaios could have endangered him, he would have killed him right away.

On the contrary. Although Alexander was at times utterly ruthless, he was never sufficiently consistent in this to ascribe it to a leading drive of pragmatism. Alexander was in fact nothing so much as a total romantic, who deliberately patterned his behaviour on what he thought a semi-divine God-Emperor should be like. And that wasn't a clever strategy either, because most people he encountered totally failed to understand what he was getting at. (Which is to be expected, when you live your life as if the Iliad is an instruction manual.)


Rumor of Ptolemy being Philip’s son only started when Ptolemy himself was in Greece, coincidence? I doubt it. Nobody before then seemed to have ever seen Ptolemy as a Argead, and I doubt any of the other surviving diadiochi ever took his claims seriously, or else they’d have at least attempted to discredit them.

Considering that this whole thread has already gone over the fact that if you intend to limit your ambitions, broadcasting your supposed relation to Alexander mostly does you a disservice (it paints a target on your back), the fact that he only brought it up when it became an advantage is no surprise. And when you're looking to mary a princess of the royal blood, it is an advantage. Can that mean he made it up then, to serve his designs? Yes. Does it have to mean that, as you suggest? No.


My point is that there are various readings of the historical record here, and ruling one of them out because you just don't believe that one is no more than a subjective interpretation. Don't confuse it for (near-)certainty.
 
That's your view; it doesn't convince me. My reading is that Ptolemaios was very sensible in limiting his ambitions, and never once attempted to posit an imperial claim. His attempt to gain control in Greece was pure opportunism, brought about by the circumstances. He never showed any sign of seeking to claim imperial hegemony, and the way he portrayed his reign didn't allude to anything like that. If he'd vassalised Greece, he'd have been King of Egypt and Greece, instead of just King of Egypt.

Yeah but why do that in the first place then? What did he have to gain in seizing Greece if his ambitions were limited? Wouldn’t it have been more convenient to snatch Tyre away from Antigonus’ clutches while he was away? Now I don’t believe Ptolemy ever aimed at reuniting the whole empire, but I don’t think he was any less ambitious than his rivals in his aims. If anything, Cassander was the one who never actually aimed too high.




On the contrary. Although Alexander was at times utterly ruthless, he was never sufficiently consistent in this to ascribe it to a leading drive of pragmatism. Alexander was in fact nothing so much as a total romantic, who deliberately patterned his behaviour on what he thought a semi-divine God-Emperor should be like. And that wasn't a clever strategy either, because most people he encountered totally failed to understand what he was getting at. (Which is to be expected, when you live your life as if the Iliad is an instruction manual.)

I wouldn’t know about total romantic. He certainly was an Achilles fanboy, and his drive for further conquests went beyond the mere practical or convenient, but I think Alexander was mostly trying to create a suitable model for a ruler of both the Eastern and Western world. Divine and distant enough to be acceptable for his Eastern subjects, but not too much to upset the Westerners. Eventually, he also aimed at making his empire a land for all peoples, if his provisions about moving Easterners in the West and Westerners in the East are to be believed. It certainly would have made for a more cohesive empire, and he could have been successful in this endeavor, had he had time. But sadly, he didn’t, and none of his successors ever attempted to seriously amalgamate the two cultures as he did.

Or maybe he was really just trying to boost his own ego by making people believe he was a god, guess we’ll never know.




Considering that this whole thread has already gone over the fact that if you intend to limit your ambitions, broadcasting your supposed relation to Alexander mostly does you a disservice (it paints a target on your back), the fact that he only brought it up when it became an advantage is no surprise. And when you're looking to mary a princess of the royal blood, it is an advantage. Can that mean he made it up then, to serve his designs? Yes. Does it have to mean that, as you suggest? No.


My point is that there are various readings of the historical record here, and ruling one of them out because you just don't believe that one is no more than a subjective interpretation. Don't confuse it for (near-)certainty.

Of course I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that Ptolemy could have been the bastard son of Philip all along and everybody decided to ignore it and keep ignoring it even after he proclaimed himself as such. Furthermore, Ptolemy was born in 367 BCE, and Philip was held hostage at Thebes since 368 BCE, at around fifteen years old. It seems too far fetched for me to really believe that Philip, at fifteen, could father Ptolemy while being away from Macedonia.
 
Top