Hi Parisad! ^_^ Thank you for commenting, I'm glad you did. If you think the fic has a historical feel overall, that's great - it means a lot coming from you!
I'm not a history buff, and only get into the history because I'm interested in certain individual figures ^_~ so I really don't know if females could've come to such an event. For writing, especially, I approach things more from a storytelling pov, and Olympias as a character had such potential for snappy dialogue and as a counter to Philip. Amyntor's show is more like a festival day than an official event - I thought that might make it more plausible for Olympias and Cleopatra to be there.
Macedon seems, to me, not so uptight about certain social norms that were common elsewhere, though its citizens can be just as stubborn about their own social expectations. Also Olympias strikes me as a very unconventional woman (though she can certainly talk about conventions to suit her purpose!). As to why the men don't seem scandalized by her outspokenness here, I thought it plausible that after so many years they could've written her off as a "hopeless case," a woman who's not going to play the traditional submissive wife no matter what they say.
Again, thanks for commenting in such detail - I really appreciate it! And I'm glad you like the fic and think it's "different." I like being oddball. ^____^
"a woman who's not going to play the traditional submissive wife no matter what they say"... uhm, I think the matter was what they DID, not SAID...a woman who didn't play the traditional submissive wife had very few chances to survive...Women tried to gain power and often they "fought" their own husband to arise their sons (or lovers), but secretly, not in public...Philip would have silenced her with a single look, probably. Strong ancient women were not like strong modern women: this is a very difficult point to understand for us. Anyway, these are details to "babble" a little with you! I hope to read new chapters soon!
It has crossed my mind that what I write, compared to other fics, is rather like a Disney-ified movie (hopefully in a good way...) so maybe you can just view the story like that? In any case, historical background is important in well, historical stories, so! "Babbling" is perfectly fine with me, I do it too.
I've reviewed the chapter elsewhere, but wanted to jump into the discussion here. Firstly, I can certainly understand using Olympias as a story-telling tool to make the situation antagonistic to Hephaistion and to provide dialogue sparks between Philip and her. This is fiction, and as far as it is understood that the story does not reflect real history, it's fine! For example, historically it is unlikely that Amyntor or Hephaistion were Athenian citizens. But it works here, since it's a story-telling tool.
As for history, women did go to public performances in the Hellenic world, but they sat apart from the men. Wives would sit apart from their husbands, where all the women sat. Whether this was true or not in Macedon, I have no idea. My gut feeling is that it would be the same. By the way, respectable women would NOT go to a symposia. I agree with Parisad that a historical Olympias would not argue with Amyntor or Philip in public - she would work from behind the scenes. And she would not speak directly with Amyntor in public - she probably would have sent a messenger across the arena with her wishes - which is far less dramatic in a story.
As for "submissive" women, Fredericka mentions Elizabeth Carney's book. This is really an excellent book on Macedonian women and gives the picture (amply supported by wonderfully presented evidence) that women, just like men, who were submissive, did NOT survive, or do well. They were just as aggressive, vicious, "bloodthirsty" as men, just that their battles were faught from behind the scenes, most of the time, but sometimes in public too. Macedonian women, as also women from Illyria, Epirus, and other northern regions, were quite different from traditional Hellenic women. Carney's words on Philip's mother, Eurydike, is quite an eye-opener (and yes, don't believe everything written by Greek sources who found Macedonian women problematic, or later Roman sources like Justin, since they were quite biased and villified strong women). Eurydike, Olympias, Kynane, Kleopatra (Alexander's sister) all faught hard, intelligently and aggressively, for the prize of power, using their children, mainly sons but also daughter like Kynane, as tools. They had opponents killed, asked outside powers for help against insurgents at home, and had to constantly watch out for other wives - if they didn't, their lives were on the line. As long as the woman was backed by a powerful family, clan, friends, home country, it mattered little how she behaved - power and money spoke louder than a demure attitude. And though they discreetly stayed at hime, they were and were expected to be, very well-informed about public affairs and politics.
I really cannot recommend Carney's book enough to get a picture of Macedonian royal women. They were a totally different bunch from Athenian women, but so often they are thought of as being the same.
^_^ The post is leading to long, detailed discussions that give me historical info pertinent to what (or rather whom) I'm a fan of. Me happy.
Far be it from me to claim anything I write as historically accurate - I'm always running into questions, on the tiniest details too. Like in this fic - which flowers and trees grew in Macedon? What were cavalry formations like? Where was the best wine produced? The answers can't be found just by reading through an "original" source like Plutarch - those don't go into detail about daily life, and are themselves stylized and, like the Greek sources Coraldawn mentions, biased. Fortunately some of these questions are pointed enough for me to make a semi-educated guess based on various online researches, or on the odd factoid I pick up in a book.
Of course these are only tangential details, never mind overarching social background such as the expectations and actual behavior of women...which is why I like these sort of posts. Philip's mother is not a figure I've ever seen mentioned in particular, for example, and the details on the behavior of women back then are very interesting. Also I love getting book recommendations even though I'm rather slow in following up on them. I'm sorry I'm not a more historically knowledgeable AtG fan, it takes me a while to accomplish anything in regards to my hobbies (as my update spans attest!) and I freely admit I'm not doing any intensive research here. ^_~
"Women, just like men, who were submissive, did NOT survive, or do well"
yes, that's it, I agree :) I think I was misunderstood there: when I talk of "submissive women" I don't think of a "submissive MODERN woman". "Submissive" doesn't mean that they couldn't fight and kill and be "bloodthirsty" as men: it just means that they were, anyway, behind the scenes and they were totally under men's power: they could fight and "work" behind the scenes, yes, but an order from their husband (and King, in this matter) could have them executed without discussions. And their power came ONLY from being mothers of a MALE SONS. Maybe I can't explain that as well as I wish in english...I mean, "submissive" is not "inert" for me (with the term "submissive" I mean the italian "dipendenti", not "sottomesse"): what I try to explain is that a woman could be very intelligent and aggressive but she was ALWAYS in a subordinate position, she depended on men's powers and authority, she could sometimes (but VERY VERY RARELY, anyway)ruled, but always trough some male parent. We don't know cases, in Macedonia or in Greece, of women who gained a DIRECT AND PERSONAL power, as we find in Egypt with Hashepsut (mother of Thutmosis III), or Tsu Hsi (chinese Empress who ruled PERSONALLY China until 1908): we had cases of women who fought and killed for their sons or lovers (that was the case of Philip's mother, for example) but they never had a PERSONAL and direct power. This is what I meant. Historical discussions are very difficult in a foreign language...;)
Okay, I don't want to spam joyeee's journal and her story, but.....
and they were totally under men's power: they could fight and "work" behind the scenes, yes, but an order from their husband (and King, in this matter) ccould have them executed without discussions. And their power came ONLY from being mothers of a MALE SONS.
Well, Kynnane used her DAUGHTER in her bid for power. Though she herself paid the price with her life, she certainly vaulted her young daughter, Adea Euridyke, to "basileia" and almost to sole power. And I really do doubt that Makedonian Kings could execute their wives without discussion! If the wife came from a powerful Kingdom or family, the King would be facing a war or lose a trusted ally! When Philip married Kleopatra/Euridyke, he immediately had to appease Olympias' brother. After Alexander's death, his sister, an Argead, was worth SO MUCH, that former friends wanted to marry her to increase their power. And she was calling the shots. Before Alexander's death, his sister was regent in Epirus. Cassander legitimized himself quite a bit by marrying Thessalonike. The fact is, families valued daughters as a means to increase their power and influence through marriage alliances. Antipatros gave his daughter Phila in marriage 4 times to powerful men! In my opinion, royal wives in Makedon were perhaps not as much under their men's thumbs as in Greek states. And so they were written off as evil by later Greeks, who probably simply couldn't understand them.
"I really do doubt that Macedonian Kings could execute their wives without discussions"
well, the fact that they would have to face the opposition of their wives' families and often they would have to fight against them, didn't prevent men from killing their own wives, if they thought it was necessary: it was husband's right to do so. Wars (and familiar feuds) were endemic anyway.
"his sister, an Argead,was worth so MUCH that former friends wnated to marry her to increase their power" Exactly: but Tessalonikes' "power" derived from her FAMILY'S power, not from herself...it was a simple question of legitimation for her "suitors".
"famlies valued their daughters as a means to increase their power" that's exactly that I'm trying to explain...
"Before Alexander's death, his sister was regent in Epyrus" yes, under the protection and the guardianship of her male parents.
Now I guess that joyeee will think: "but they have nothing to do but discuss about that on my LJ"? ;0) definitively, I think we have to exchange mails sometimes :) *hug*
I'm not a history buff, and only get into the history because I'm interested in certain individual figures ^_~ so I really don't know if females could've come to such an event. For writing, especially, I approach things more from a storytelling pov, and Olympias as a character had such potential for snappy dialogue and as a counter to Philip. Amyntor's show is more like a festival day than an official event - I thought that might make it more plausible for Olympias and Cleopatra to be there.
Macedon seems, to me, not so uptight about certain social norms that were common elsewhere, though its citizens can be just as stubborn about their own social expectations. Also Olympias strikes me as a very unconventional woman (though she can certainly talk about conventions to suit her purpose!). As to why the men don't seem scandalized by her outspokenness here, I thought it plausible that after so many years they could've written her off as a "hopeless case," a woman who's not going to play the traditional submissive wife no matter what they say.
Again, thanks for commenting in such detail - I really appreciate it! And I'm glad you like the fic and think it's "different." I like being oddball. ^____^
Reply
uhm, I think the matter was what they DID, not SAID...a woman who didn't play the traditional submissive wife had very few chances to survive...Women tried to gain power and often they "fought" their own husband to arise their sons (or lovers), but secretly, not in public...Philip would have silenced her with a single look, probably. Strong ancient women were not like strong modern women: this is a very difficult point to understand for us.
Anyway, these are details to "babble" a little with you! I hope to read new chapters soon!
Reply
In any case, historical background is important in well, historical stories, so! "Babbling" is perfectly fine with me, I do it too.
Reply
As for history, women did go to public performances in the Hellenic world, but they sat apart from the men. Wives would sit apart from their husbands, where all the women sat. Whether this was true or not in Macedon, I have no idea. My gut feeling is that it would be the same. By the way, respectable women would NOT go to a symposia. I agree with Parisad that a historical Olympias would not argue with Amyntor or Philip in public - she would work from behind the scenes. And she would not speak directly with Amyntor in public - she probably would have sent a messenger across the arena with her wishes - which is far less dramatic in a story.
As for "submissive" women, Fredericka mentions Elizabeth Carney's book. This is really an excellent book on Macedonian women and gives the picture (amply supported by wonderfully presented evidence) that women, just like men, who were submissive, did NOT survive, or do well. They were just as aggressive, vicious, "bloodthirsty" as men, just that their battles were faught from behind the scenes, most of the time, but sometimes in public too. Macedonian women, as also women from Illyria, Epirus, and other northern regions, were quite different from traditional Hellenic women. Carney's words on Philip's mother, Eurydike, is quite an eye-opener (and yes, don't believe everything written by Greek sources who found Macedonian women problematic, or later Roman sources like Justin, since they were quite biased and villified strong women). Eurydike, Olympias, Kynane, Kleopatra (Alexander's sister) all faught hard, intelligently and aggressively, for the prize of power, using their children, mainly sons but also daughter like Kynane, as tools. They had opponents killed, asked outside powers for help against insurgents at home, and had to constantly watch out for other wives - if they didn't, their lives were on the line. As long as the woman was backed by a powerful family, clan, friends, home country, it mattered little how she behaved - power and money spoke louder than a demure attitude. And though they discreetly stayed at hime, they were and were expected to be, very well-informed about public affairs and politics.
I really cannot recommend Carney's book enough to get a picture of Macedonian royal women. They were a totally different bunch from Athenian women, but so often they are thought of as being the same.
Reply
Far be it from me to claim anything I write as historically accurate - I'm always running into questions, on the tiniest details too. Like in this fic - which flowers and trees grew in Macedon? What were cavalry formations like? Where was the best wine produced? The answers can't be found just by reading through an "original" source like Plutarch - those don't go into detail about daily life, and are themselves stylized and, like the Greek sources Coraldawn mentions, biased. Fortunately some of these questions are pointed enough for me to make a semi-educated guess based on various online researches, or on the odd factoid I pick up in a book.
Of course these are only tangential details, never mind overarching social background such as the expectations and actual behavior of women...which is why I like these sort of posts. Philip's mother is not a figure I've ever seen mentioned in particular, for example, and the details on the behavior of women back then are very interesting. Also I love getting book recommendations even though I'm rather slow in following up on them. I'm sorry I'm not a more historically knowledgeable AtG fan, it takes me a while to accomplish anything in regards to my hobbies (as my update spans attest!) and I freely admit I'm not doing any intensive research here. ^_~
Thanks to you both, and to Fredericka!
Reply
yes, that's it, I agree :) I think I was misunderstood there: when I talk of "submissive women" I don't think of a "submissive MODERN woman". "Submissive" doesn't mean that they couldn't fight and kill and be "bloodthirsty" as men: it just means that they were, anyway, behind the scenes and they were totally under men's power: they could fight and "work" behind the scenes, yes, but an order from their husband (and King, in this matter) could have them executed without discussions. And their power came ONLY from being mothers of a MALE SONS. Maybe I can't explain that as well as I wish in english...I mean, "submissive" is not "inert" for me (with the term "submissive" I mean the italian "dipendenti", not "sottomesse"): what I try to explain is that a woman could be very intelligent and aggressive but she was ALWAYS in a subordinate position, she depended on men's powers and authority, she could sometimes (but VERY VERY RARELY, anyway)ruled, but always trough some male parent. We don't know cases, in Macedonia or in Greece, of women who gained a DIRECT AND PERSONAL power, as we find in Egypt with Hashepsut (mother of Thutmosis III), or Tsu Hsi (chinese Empress who ruled PERSONALLY China until 1908): we had cases of women who fought and killed for their sons or lovers (that was the case of Philip's mother, for example) but they never had a PERSONAL and direct power. This is what I meant.
Historical discussions are very difficult in a foreign language...;)
Reply
and they were totally under men's power: they could fight and "work" behind the scenes, yes, but an order from their husband (and King, in this matter) ccould have them executed without discussions. And their power came ONLY from being mothers of a MALE SONS.
Well, Kynnane used her DAUGHTER in her bid for power. Though she herself paid the price with her life, she certainly vaulted her young daughter, Adea Euridyke, to "basileia" and almost to sole power. And I really do doubt that Makedonian Kings could execute their wives without discussion! If the wife came from a powerful Kingdom or family, the King would be facing a war or lose a trusted ally! When Philip married Kleopatra/Euridyke, he immediately had to appease Olympias' brother. After Alexander's death, his sister, an Argead, was worth SO MUCH, that former friends wanted to marry her to increase their power. And she was calling the shots. Before Alexander's death, his sister was regent in Epirus. Cassander legitimized himself quite a bit by marrying Thessalonike. The fact is, families valued daughters as a means to increase their power and influence through marriage alliances. Antipatros gave his daughter Phila in marriage 4 times to powerful men! In my opinion, royal wives in Makedon were perhaps not as much under their men's thumbs as in Greek states. And so they were written off as evil by later Greeks, who probably simply couldn't understand them.
Reply
well, the fact that they would have to face the opposition of their wives' families and often they would have to fight against them, didn't prevent men from killing their own wives, if they thought it was necessary: it was husband's right to do so. Wars (and familiar feuds) were endemic anyway.
"his sister, an Argead,was worth so MUCH that former friends wnated to marry her to increase their power"
Exactly: but Tessalonikes' "power" derived from her FAMILY'S power, not from herself...it was a simple question of legitimation for her "suitors".
"famlies valued their daughters as a means to increase their power"
that's exactly that I'm trying to explain...
"Before Alexander's death, his sister was regent in Epyrus"
yes, under the protection and the guardianship of her male parents.
Now I guess that joyeee will think: "but they have nothing to do but discuss about that on my LJ"? ;0) definitively, I think we have to exchange mails sometimes :)
*hug*
Reply
Leave a comment