other members of court were sighted as having an issue with Hermolaus punishment, or his
execution.
There is a more glaring distinction between the two hunting encounters. In the
account about Lysimachus, Alexander is able to subdue him before he intercepted the killing
blow; whereas ‘Hermolaus struck it before Alexander could; it fell from his stroke, and
Alexander, too late for his chance, was angry’. 41 Those who joined Alexander on hunts were
responsible for protecting their king, especially Pages, but there was a growing difficulty in
deciding when Alexander was in control and when his life was in imminent danger, assume
incorrectly, and th e king’s wrath would envelop. 42 The saving grace for Lysimachus might
have been that he had not yet struck the lion, but in the case of Hermolaus he had already
killed the boar, and he therefore received a stronger punishment.
The erraticism forms in comparison between Lysimachus and Hermolaus against
Craterus. In a similar hunting setting against a lion, Craterus is known for coming to
Alexander’s aid and facing no repercussions. It has been suggested that Alexander favoured
Craterus over Hermolaus and Lys imachus because Craterus had saved Alexander’s life in
battle at the Malli city. 43 Initially, this theory corresponds well with Alexander’s immense
preference towards nobles that flattered and supported him, it stands to reason that
Alexander would be more lenient to those who had saved his life. 44 Court became
dependent on Alexander’s opinions rather than relying on Macedonian protocols. This is
extremely apparent by the diverse reactions to similar hunting incidents. Therefore, the
41 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander 4.13.1-2 42 Carney, ‘ Hunting ’ , p. 63; Reames, p. 88 43 Carney, ‘ Hunting ’ , p. 64 44 For a detailed analysis of how flattery impacted Alexander’s court see Spawforth (2007)
91
Made with FlippingBook HTML5