Macedonian Kings

[Stevce]

Hi guys, I read that Phillip and Alexander were referred to their regular name's and not titles because they were not legitimate Greek kings. It makes sense to me as they were both shrewd politicians and new how to play everyone around them.

Link is below
https://books.google.com.au/books?id...20zeus&f=false

[Amphipolis]

Originally Posted by Stevce

Hi guys, I read that Phillip and Alexander were referred to their regular name's and not titles because they were not legitimate Greek kings. It makes sense to me as they were both shrewd politicians and new how to play everyone around them.

First of all, that’s not what the author is saying (in page 246).

He is basically asking: “Is it true that Macedonian Kings are always referred simply by their names in History texts or official documents, e.g. Philip instead of King Philip”? and if so “does that mean anything”?

While the author is an important historian (E. Badian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Badian) the questions (I’m afraid) are not very fortunate because the answers are No and No. The rest of the paper which goes to the issue of the deification is more meaningful.

Being familiar with Herodotus I checked the original which is available on-line and what he suggests is not valid.

The Corinth League foundation oath can be found on Wikipedia and most of the text is missing. So, there’s nothing there.

As for his reference to the Spartan Kings, I’ve no idea where he bases it.

I wouldn’t like to go further and remind that some of the Macedonian coins would say Philip and others King Philip (same as for Macedonian Kings before and after him).

[Stevce]

I couldn't add the file.

So here I go from page 246.
"Not once, either in Herodotus or in the Corpus Demosthencium, is the king of Macedon referred to with "King" before his name, he is regularly referred by his mere name. And this corresponds to the usage we find in the documents. We have no documents from cities within Macedon. . But Athenian documents refer to the king of Macedon by mere name, just as other writers do. And this is not confined to Athens. The alliance of the Chalcidic League with Amyntas 3 and later with Phillip 2 use bare names, with patronymics added in more formal sections. In what is called the foundation document of the League of Corinth Phillip Baselious is referred to, but he himself is called plain Phillip. Or in the introduction of the oath Phillip the Macedonian. . This last item makes quiet clear what the evidence suggests: that the omission of the royal title was not a mark of disrespect, but was approved of by (perhaps due to) the kings themselves. The reason for this can only be conjectured. But they were not legitimate Greek kings, .

Like all documents and history, people are free to interpret it as they will. For me it is a plausible and interesting view point expressed.

[Amphipolis]

As I said before there WOULD BE a case, if they could present ONE document where other Kings and Macedonian Kings are systematically presented that way (King Xerxes, King Agis, Philip). I can only contribute that this is not the case in Herodotus or League of Corinth. I can’t speak of Demosthenes work; he would after all be a special case (THE worst enemy of Philip). Yet, even in his case, I don’t see Badian presenting a clear case of avoiding protocol.

Lastly, I don’t think anyone should expect a certain protocol in historical or rhetorical texts. There isn’t one today; I don’t think there was one in antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Corinth