Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
who is parmenio?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by doolfluap (U3354642) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
i've come across this name a few times in writings on ancient greece all seemingly with different opinions as to who he was. parmenio/parmenion was some sort of mercenary as far as i can tell as his name pops up in sparta, thebes, athens, macedonia.. maybe the simplest answer is that it was a common name. anyone out there with light to shed?
-
Message 2
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
doolfluap
The Parmenio (or Parmenion) I've heard of was one of the great generals to fight under Alexander the Great. In fact he served his father Philip II of Macedon before him. He was treated rather shoddily by a paranoid Alexander who had him executed after his son was implicated in an assassination attempt against the son of Amun.
Cheers -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Parmenion was one of the generals of king Philip II and later of Alexander the Great - certainly the best among generals of the macedonian army and for me personally perhaps the best ever Greek general (unless early Byzantine general Belisarius is classified as a medieval Greek and not as a late Roman (at that time even the palace used mainly Greek language) - he certainly spoke but i do not remember his origins).
Parmenion was born around 400 B.C. in an aristocratic macedonian family thus he enjoyed a first class education in all sciences comparable to the highest standards of the times and of course primarily in the military sector. However he was raised in a greek kingdom that was falling apart being virtually demolished by 1) rich Chalkidiki cities (Greeks) who controlled the area's gold mines, allied to Athens 2) North western Illyrian tribes (barbarians) 3) Northern Dardanian tribes (not yet fully established if greeks or barbarians) and 4) southern Thessalian federation (greek)... i.e. they had only their west side secure ('brother kingdom' of Epirus with whom they shared close relations). Up to 360 B.C. a time when Parmenio was nearly 40 Macedonia had been half-consured by neighbouring Dardanians (who already had integrated the latest military tactics unlike the generally backwards Macedonians) and was reduced to a small region including Olympus and just a bit northwest of it.
At that time young Philip II came back in the kigdom to take power after being hostage for many years in Theba (the premier power till 360 B.C. famous for its military innovation of the "inclined-phalanx"). Along with Parmenion they worked togather on the restructuring of the Macedonian army. The amazing thing is that depiste all that pressure, they took at least 5 years dedicated to training the army and inventing new ways of combat which led to the macedonian phalanx formation. Most claim that it was mainly Philip's idea since it was Philip who saw in training the Theban phalanx system but some say that it was actually mainly Parmenion's invention: In any case it is certain that both men contributed to the restructuring of the army which by 356 B.C. was ready to hit back first starting from the 'pressing' north, clearing Dardanians and Illyrians (from being the conquered they managed to conquer them in no time), then turned south to Thessalians and east to the Athenian allies, then after taking control of the gold mines and refurnishing the army they hit the south. Victory after victory - almost all victories are attributed to Parmenion's military skills. Due to his military skills (and Philip's suberb vision and strategic decisions) Macedonia had become in 10-15 years the most powerfull Greek state ready to take off for Asia.
Philip II sent him with Attalus and Amyntas to prepare for the reduction of Asia but then Philip was murdered and the project continued with his son Alexander the Great. At the battles of Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela, he successfully led - as usual - the left wing of the army that was traditionally the most vulnerable thus most critical for success. Despite his invaluable contribution to the success of the Macedonian kingdom Alexander the Great called for his execution after learning that Parmenio's son Philotas was plotting Alexander's murder. Although Parmenio was never implicated in the assassin plot, his execution was carried out if I remember in 330 at a time when he was of 70-75 years old... which still was an unfair end to such a man. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Just to show to you what kind of a leader was old Parmenion: he had trained his infantry to the extend of covering 50km per day (which has been well established) that made the macedonian army the quickest infantry perhaps till modern time. 50km per day is an amazing distance that normally would exhaust even light infantry taking into account all the equipment they carried. With such performance it is no surprise how quickly they advanced in Asia. It is indicative that Romans covered a bit more than 50km only with their cavarly and on built roads (with Mongols being the fastest till modern times - nearly 100km per day cos of their enduring horses). The average till mechanised infantry was 20km and the fast 30km per day.
-
Message 5
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
"The Athenians look for ten new Generals every year, I've only ever found one." Philip II of Macedon.
-
Message 6
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
from what ive read belisarius is evidently classed as a better general than alexander?
and wasnt parmenion killed accidentally by alexander during a drunken brawl, or am i thinking black cleitus? -
Message 7
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Marduk, apologies for bringing this back to the top but Hephaistion was killed in the infamous drunken brawl. As Nick notes Parmenio was found guilty for having fathered someone implicated in a plot against Alexander that saw Alexander clear out much of the old Macedonian guard that surrounded his father and resented the elevation of many Perrsian satraps to the status of Companions.
-
Message 8
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Nick,
He wasn't a Greek... he was a Macedonian!
Elistan
PS How you been keeping? -
Message 9
Posted by rheidol (U898537) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Hephaistion died of natural causes, not as a result of a brawl.
-
Message 10
Posted by Dentatus (U3982478) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
It was Cleitus "the Black" who was killed in the drunken arguement, he didn't like the way things were getting too oriental.
-
Message 11
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Please don't laugh too much of this is a stupid question, but how much of the David Gemmell book "Lion of Macedon" is historically accurate (if anyone else has read it). It seems broadly in line with what's been mentioned above (and is a cracking read) but I don't now how much of it has been fictionalised.
Thanks. -
Message 12
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
I have read it and enjoyed it for what it was. However, I think Gemmell was counting on the fact that there is not much actually known about Parmenio so he coul dweave his usual mixture of of action and fantasy. As far as I have been able to learn, Parmenio was definitely a general under Philip, but I don't think much is known of him before that. I have never been able to find any historical Spartan connection.
He is mentioned frequently in writings about Alexander, but usually not in a good light. He is usually shown to have said things before a battle expressing caution so that Alexander can be shown as the bold hero who comes up with a plan others would not think of. These things were, of course, written after Parmenio's son Philotas was implicated in plots against Alexander, and Parmenio was dead, so it was easy to denigrate him.
Attalus was also a recorded historical figure, although he was anobleman, I believe, rather than an assassin as portrayed in the novel.
I think Gemmell's theory that Parmenio was the brains behind Alexander's victories is quite appealling and certainly Alexander never quite had the same victories after Parmenio was killed. On the other hand, Alexander never quite had the same enbemies to fight after then, either.
One thing that attracts me to the idea is the fact that Parmenio was cast in such a poor light after his death. It may well be that this is purely because of his son's actions, but could it be because he really was the master general whose role had to be diminished to grow the legend of Alexander? It is impossible to know the truth of things after all this time, whic his why Gemmell was able to create th eversion of the story that he did. -
Message 13
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Cheers, technically we're not entirely sure what caused the argument other than there was too much drink.,There again I can't even get the right compannion so I'm not much help here in any case.
-
Message 14
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
ive read a guddun' wrote by a eyetie historian called massimo manfredi summat-or-other
-
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
Elistan, I wish you pleasant vacations!
On your comments on Parmenion being a Macedonian and not a Greek (in the sense that 'as-if' Macedonians were not Greeks) well I think we have covered just nicely this issue in the past when I really became so unpopular for bringing so many arguments and points against zero arguments blatantly humiliatingly exposing the few ones supporting the other side... afterall it is only so easy to prove a city or kingdom or a place was Greek once we only dig and find greek, once we know its language to had been Greek, once for 3000 years it was described only as Greek and once it had been always participating in the Olympics (need I remind to you the associated laws?) even as a powerless little unimportant kingdom.
Now what Tony mentioned seems at first plausible: since Parmenion's fame was reduced after his death this may imply that he was behind all that success of Alexander's army - reminding us the case of Justinian and Belisarius (Justinian favoured mostly Narsis who was nowhere near the capabilities of Belisarius for fear that Belisarius could eventually claim the imperial throne based on his huge military success).
However, though I am an admirer of Parmenion as a general I have to once again remind you that Alexander was not a general and he never perceived himself or tried to sell himself as a general. He was above generals, he was the leader of the army thus I honestly do not think that he would care much if soldiers recognised Parmenion's capabilities. Usually it was Alexander himself who recognised the capabilities of his generals, officers down to the last soldier to whom when he was talking he would say "I am Alexandros but you are an Alexandros too" (meaning that "we are all into that together", and that is true considering the fact that soldiers were really well paid (unlike say Roman soldiers who were little paid even after conquests of the richest states) and that even when he allowed soldiers to return home with their profits, many actually preferred to continue with him. Alexander would not forgive the disobeyance and that is why he punished so severely the unmasked plots...
Who knows? Today we mauy think that it was unfair to kill his companions, people that contributed so much to the success but then I need to remind you that this was an army of Greeks and Greeks are not so famous for slave-like obeyance to leaders (so easily found in other cultures). You may give Greeks God himself as a leader and they will soon start to think "why listen to that crap, we are 10 times better ourselves". Of course, I find unfair the treatment of old Parmenion who was never proved to be plotting and was assasinated along with his son but then taking into account the other perspective, if Alexander had let him live what garantued him that Parmenion would not try to take revenge for the death of his son?
Since Alexander died so early I do not think that he made any serious attempt to reduce Parmenion's contribution due to the aforementioned tragic events. It was mostly the usual phenomenon that the people will always be attracted to the story of the true leader than to the story of an excellent officer. Who would care about Parmenion? Alxeander was the leader. It was Alexander that came to the top being named as God. It was natually that story that would move the people and not that of a general who positioned good and led good his armies in campaign.
Afterall, though Parmenion was the central figure of Alexander's army (as it had been previously for his father's army, well the same army), there were a number of other highly capable officers that contributed to the success and there is no doubt on that. But then if it was not for Alexander I seriously doubt that Parmenion alone would move anywhere further than Minor Asia. There is only 1 man in history that could do what Alexander did and that was only Philip and nobody else (perhaps Jenkis Han but then he would need only horsemen... ehehe and some half a million of them at least!!!). -
Message 16
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
Well in the timeframe yes only Philip or Alexander could have conquered Asia, although defeating the Persian Empire was not the same as governing it. I mean Nadir Shah swept through India in the eighteenth century defeating practically all opposition but promptly withdrew once he'd aped Timur the Lame. Dunno, sure its no surprise to anyone that I've never really been enthused by those Alexandrian Romances. Mind you if Alexander had stuck with Parmenio's advice and accepted the Western Seaboard as his sphere of influence he might well have lived long enough to consolidate his dynasty with a few wives from Lydian noble families before marching off again but he was always impatient for Achilles like glory.
Of course Justinian favoured Narses, given his noted physical deformity it meant he could not assume the purple, let alone provide any offspring that might challenge for the succession. Still its perhaps unfair to compare the competent Narses with the flair of Belisarius. They both had a paymaster with ideas bigger than his pockets. -
Message 17
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
aye yet they had nearly the needed amount of gumption to let his dream become reality for a time...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.