Macedonian Law
Macedonian Law was quirky even by ancient standards. The ancient Macedonians' hailed from the fertile equestrian plains and jagged mountains at the northernmost edge of Greece and rose to extraordinary military ascendancy in the middle of the Fourth Century BC under Philip II, only to be capitalised on by his son, Alexander. The Athenian orator, Demosthenes, depicts this culture as too socially barbaric to ever be fully Greek, but too Greek in certain cultural aspects to be fully barbaric. As consequence, they occupied a peculiar liminal hinterland of identity in the ancient world and their laws reflected this.
The Macedonians heavily relied on Nomos or customary law, a series of complex and unwritten social conventions that composed a format of practices of how to behave ethically and morally. The King would almost always have the final word as an arbiter of justice in most high, and even some low, profile cases. He was assisted by the Synedrion, or Royal Council as an advisory body. Whilst regnal verdict was final in the majority of cases, succession crises, capital cases and treason all required a jury made up of noble citizens or army officers, depending on the context. A trait that seems almost wholly unique to the Macedonian legal framework amongst ancient monarchies was open speech. Free speech as a comparison would be a clumsy modern shoehorn, but Alexander and Philip encouraged their Companions and anyone with personal grievance, with evidence, to present their case and welcome a discussion that could override their decision or edict. This open speech in court promoted critical thought, built bonds of trust between monarch and subject and promoted that a monarch was strong and just, but not a tyrant deploying whimsical judgements.
The Trial of Philotas, 330BC
One such historical case that explores the Macedonian judicial process, the messy lines between the right to a defence and autocratic authority and the ever poignant role of language in law is the trial of Philotas. Philotas was the commander of Alexander's cavalry and the son of Parmenion, a former general of Alexander's father and highly influential and respected officer in Alexander's army.
Alexander's conquest east started in 334, and by 330, he held control of lands stretching from Greece to central Persia. In 330, Alexander was made aware that Philotas had been implicated in a plot to assassinate him. Sources differ on the order of events, but they all conclude that Philotas had discovered a plot by a man named Dimnus to kill Alexander and he had done nothing about it, resulting in his immediate trial.
Philotas was pulled in front of Alexander and a jury composed of officers from within Alexander’s army. Philotas claimed he did not raise concerns as he believed Dimnus to possess too little influence or be too low class to enact any plot with conviction. Despite the jury pushing for a swift punishment, the initial hearing was dismissed by Alexandeer as negligence on Philotas’ part.
The following night, Philotas is arrested again and retried in front of the same jury, who had persuaded Alexander for a a retrial, this time with the inclusion of torture. Philotas was asked whether he wants to defend himself ‘an patrio sermone’, meaning in his own tongue. Greek was the lingua-franca of the Macedonian army, but most of the officers and native Macedonian troops would have spoken a language, that scholars debate between, being a dialect of Greek to an entirely unique language. Philotas chose to defend himself in Greek, not Macedonian. The jury instantly turned upon him and accused him of forsaking his identity and betraying his culture. Philotas was found guilty of conspiracy and stoned to death, further orders being circulated to assassinate his father and several other high ranking Macedonian nobles to mitigate backlash.
Conclusions
Upon initial glance, the trial may look like a kangaroo court, and there were many within Alexander’s army that wanted to get rid of Philotas and this was their opportunity to do so. But the implications go deeper. The Macedonians were monarchical in structure, but firmly believed in juries, open speech and the right to a defence to avoid becoming tyrannical. The involvement of torture is presented in the sources as having raised major concerns in legal proceedings and indicates it was not the norm, and Philotas had been tried too hastily without the proper chance to defend his actions. Furthermore, his decision to defend himself in Greek is framed as being so he could be tried fairly without risking mistranslation, as everyone knew Greek but only a few knew Macedonian, but it is used as a weapon against him to isolate him from his countrymen.
The trial symbolised a major shift in Alexander’s personal aims and Macedonian law in general, showing how Alexander was letting his personal grievances and whims override the institutional values of Nomos and he favoured results that maintained order, rather than those which had a definitive answer, guilty or innocent.
