Phidias, architect and sculptor

One of the most recurrent names of Greek sculptors is undoubtedly Phidias. He lived in the days of Pericles, Athens’ Golden Age. His best-known masterpieces were completed in the years between 465 and 430 BC.

The first Persian War of 490 BC ended with the Battle of Marathon. The second Persian invasion in 480 and 479 BC led to the fire of Athens and its Acropolis. The Athenians who had sought refuge on the nearby island of Salamis could only watch on. As a result of these wars, Athens had to be rebuilt, and Themistocles’ priority was to protect the city. He erected a protective wall using much of the rubble from the destroyed buildings.

The restoration of the Acropolis happened only some thirty years later. That enterprise was led by the statesman and orator Pericles, who came to power around 461 BC. He had befriended Phidias, who was already a celebrated artist. He put him in charge of rebuilding the Parthenon.

Rebuilding the Parthenon was no small affair. Phidias functioned as a modern general manager and supervisor and had to take care of almost every detail. The new design was meant to boost Greek morale and express the courage of the Greeks who had defeated the Persian invaders.

The modern restoration works at the Parthenon have revealed many subtle construction elements that were hitherto unknown. Isn’t it amazing to find out that the true genius of Phidias surfaces only 2,500 years after his death? Thanks to modern technology, we can genuinely appreciate the complicated arithmetic and geometric correlation in calculating the temple’s proportions. And there is an overall inter-relationship between its height, width, and depth that has never been surpassed. As described in an earlier blog (see: The perfection of a Greek temple), the entire concept of the Parthenon is just perfect. The eye is being tricked, for there is no single straight line in the whole construction!

Many original friezes and reliefs have now been moved to the New Acropolis Museum. The way they are exhibited helps us understand the concept of the entire project as the sequence of the scenes unfolds to the visitor walking past.

Under Pericles, Phidias constructed a giant nine-meter-high statue of Athena Promachos in bronze. It stood between the Propylaea (the actual entrance to the Acropolis) and the Parthenon and could be seen far out at sea. Another statue of Athena was erected inside the Parthenon. This was a chryselephantine statue that stood twelve meters tall. It was covered with ivory and gold. Athena was easily recognizable to all, with the head of Medusa on her shield and her characteristic helmet. As extra references, she carried the image of Nike, the goddess of Victory, in her right hand and held her spear with her left. At her feet, a small pond filled with oil was added to moisturize the fragile ivory, creating a soft reflection of her features at the same time. This Athena was dedicated in 438 BC, i.e., almost ten years after its conception. Please note that this was only 100 years before Alexander the Great was born. He must have seen her in all her glory!

Very soon afterward, Phidias’ started his greatest masterpiece, which became one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. We are talking about the famous statue of Zeus, conceived especially for the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, completed in 432 BC. It stood in the inner temple and is beyond our imagination. In antiquity, it was described as an acrolith, i.e., made of a wooden frame covered with ivory and gold (see also: The ladies of Morgantina), with inlaid eyes. Zeus was crowned with an olive wreath. In his right hand, he held an elephantine statue of Nike, the goddess of Victory, while in his left hand, he held the divine scepter. Although the father of the gods was seated, the statue stood 12.4 meters high, meaning that his head nearly hit the ceiling. Just like for the Athena inside the Parthenon, the ivory body parts of Zeus were regularly rubbed with oil. A shallow oil reservoir in front of the statue also acted as a reflecting pool (see: Olympia, in the footsteps of Pausanias).

Working from his nearby shop in Olympia, it took Phidias eight years to complete this wondrous statue. His quarters were built primarily to house this work of art. The place has been identified thanks to a small terracotta cup unearthed within its walls carrying the inscription “I belong to Pheidias.” His house must have emanated prestige and elegance fitting a renowned and accomplished artist.

Sadly, no originals of Phidias’ work have survived. All we have are copies usually made by the Romans several centuries later. The artist is known for creating a dedication in memory of Marathon and a large bronze in Delphi that combined Apollo and Athena with several attic heroes. We can be assured, however, that he influenced countless artists all over the Mediterranean for many centuries.

Phidias died in 430 BC, probably shortly after having completed his Olympian masterpiece, but the circumstances of his death are shrouded in mystery.

Harpalos’ mismanagement or is it Alexander’s?

It is common knowledge that Alexander valued friendship above all. His first core group of friends took shape at an early age when they joined him in Mieza for Aristotle’s tutoring and these friendships lasted till the end of his life. Harpalos was one of them, and he was among those who were exiled by Philip for siding with and supporting his son in the Pixodarus affair. Once he became king, Alexander called them back and promoted them to high positions in his army. Harpalos, however, being physically unfit for military duty, was assigned as Treasurer.

In Alexander’s eyes, his friends could do no wrong, and a few such examples have transpired. There is Philotas’ first conspiracy in Egypt that was reported by his mistress Antigone and confirmed by Coenus, who was married to Philotas’ sister Antigone – strong evidence that Alexander refused to believe. That was in 332 BC, and Philotas survived another two years before being put to death in Alexandria in Drangiana for failing to report or for participating in another conspiracy to take Alexander’s life. It is pretty significant that the king left most of the judging and sentencing to his Companions and the Macedonian army.

The case of Harpalos is another matter and by far the most enigmatic example. Just before Alexander engaged in the Battle of Issus, and for some obscure reason, Harpalos fled to Megarid in Greece. He may have cowardly chickened out, not believing in his king’s victory against Darius, and seeking a safe haven elsewhere. Or, he may have been under the bad influence of a certain Tauriscus, who escaped at the same time to find refuge in Italy. In any case, this indicates that both men had serious reasons to fear Alexander’s wrath for whatever wrongdoing or embezzlement they had committed.

Two years later, however, Alexander inexplicably called Harpalos back and reinstated him with the resounding title of Guardian of the Babylonia Treasury and the Revenues Accruing Thereto and put him in charge of the enormous treasures he had so far collected in Asia Minor and in Egypt. Alexander reassured Harpalos that he would not be punished for whatever happened before. Why he made this decision or what triggered it is everyone’s guess. One would think he had enough capable and responsible officers in his army, he could trust with this highly sensitive position besides Harpalos. Maybe the fact that the aunt of his friend, Phila, was one of his father’s wives played a role, since this relationship also made him a family member. In any case, there is no rational explanation for Alexander’s decision. The fact remains that Harpalos occupied the most powerful position compared to Alexander’s other friends and this was in spite of the fact that he had betrayed his king’s trust.

After seizing the intact treasuries of Babylon, Persepolis, and Pasargadae, Alexander put the largest wealth ever accumulated in history into Harpalos' hands, installing him in Ecbatana with 6,000 troops to guard the booty.

As Alexander headed further east into the heart of Central Asia, his treasurer moved to Babylon where he lavishly spent the amounts of money for his own pleasures with prostitutes and hetaerae, setting up a court only equaled by Nero a few centuries later. He picked a courtesan from Athens named Pythionice, who was covered with gifts worthy of a queen. This extravagant love affair did not last, for she soon died and was interred in a stunning memorial for the baffling price of 200 talents paid for by the treasury. Yet Harpalos’ megalomania did not stop there since he also built a temple in Babylon where she would be worshiped as Aphrodite Pythionic and another expensive monument on the Sacred Road in Athens. This last epitaph was witnessed by our traveling reporter Pausanias several centuries later, who considered it unworthy of the 30 talents it had cost.

After this extravaganza, Harpalos sent for another Athenian hetaera, Glycera. Like her predecessor, she lived like a queen and even received divine honors. Her beauty was trumpeted forth in Syria with a statue dedicated to her beauty and at Tarsus, where a luxurious palace was constructed for her pleasure. Harpalos showed no respect for Alexander and certainly did not reciprocate his friendship. Like on the eve of the Battle of Issus, he probably expected his king to be the underdog in one of the many fights, battles, skirmishes, and confrontations with the barbarians in the east. Alexander would evidently be killed and never return to the court Harpalos had cut out for himself at Babylon.

But Alexander did return from India and soon discovered how many satraps had taken advantage of their privileged position to fill their own pockets. His response was immediate, and he promptly executed the culprits there and then. Obviously, Harpalos had every reason to expect his king’s anger, and he feared for his life. He packed up as much money as he could possibly carry, and with 5,000 talents [that is the equivalent of three billion dollars] and 6,000 mercenaries, he set sail for Athens.

It is known that Alexander sent three different embassies to demand Harpalos’ extradition, but they all returned empty-handed. Thanks to lavish bribes paid by Harpalos to the Athenian politicians – led by the ever-sour Demosthenes - who still resented Alexander’s successes and the Macedonian power, he was able to escape. Eventually, Harpalos was captured in Crete and assassinated by his own men, one year before the king’s own death.

How is it possible that Alexander, the conqueror of the world, was unable to catch and judge Harpalos wherever he was? Many men were killed for stealing less than Harpalos’ extravagant expenditure and the 5,000 talents (equaling 142 tons of silver and 14 tons of gold) he took with him to Athens. Alexander must have been aware of this corruptible behavior but turned a blind eye to it? Neither stupidity nor ignorance can be the reason for Alexander’s action – or non-action - and the most obvious explanation would be mismanagement.

This is an extremely serious accusation, and it is hard to believe that a bright mind like Alexander’s could be capable of such a misjudgment and such a miscalculation. As strange as it may be, it seems that Alexander was not truly interested in money but rather in conquering new territories and expanding his power, since there are other examples of embezzlement that were left unpunished or which he somehow accepted.

There is the case of Cleomenes, whom Alexander had appointed in Egypt to collect taxes and manage his finances, including the building of Alexandria. This man had set up a shady trade business selling wheat to Athens, extorted money from the priests on a broad scale, and cheated the soldiers in his service. An official complaint was filed and sent to Alexander, and guess what? The king not only pardoned Cleomenes for said crimes, ordering him to build a temple in honor of Hephaistion, but he also forgave him all future violations! Unbelievable! Ptolemy was much smarter, and as soon as he became king of Egypt, he executed Cleomenes. Chop-chop!

In between Harpalos’ two appointments as treasurer, there were the cases of Coeranus and Philoxenus, who got away with exorbitant amounts of money. The final replacement for Harpalos, Antimenes of Rhodes, made a reputation for oppression by imposing outrageous taxes, setting up a swindle business with slave owners and travelers on the royal roads. All these financial officers somehow escaped disciplinary actions, or at least none are being documented besides the cases of Harpalos and Cleomenes.

Maybe it is true that Alexander was not much interested in money, at least not beyond the strict necessity to finance his next campaign or war, which would automatically generate a new inflow of money. He loved to give and he gave in style, not only to his close friends but also to new allies (e.g. Porus), to his soldiers as a prize for merit and bravery in combat, and to his veterans sent back to Macedonia, including travel expenses, bonuses, and stipends for the wives they left behind in Asia. He entirely financed the huge Susa wedding, i.e., his own but also that of his one hundred Companions, and he offered wedding gifts for his 10,000 Macedonians who had taken Asian brides on the road. When he heard that his army was in deep debt, he paid them some 20,000 talents out of his own pocket (evidently from his treasury), requiring 280 tons of coins.

Being the richest man in the world with wealth acquired in a short decade, Alexander could not call on anyone with enough experience and skills to manage such huge sums. Even he, although a brilliant general and military leader, had no training in managing such enormous amounts of gold and silver. Even his shrewd father had always spent his money before even having it in his hands, but in his case, the consequences were limited because the amounts were less, and the world in which he moved was much smaller.

To Alexander’s credit, it should be noted that he leaned heavily on the existing Persian administrative system created by Cyrus the Great, but its true implementation would have taken more time since his Macedonian commanders and officers did not (yet) share Alexander’s broad vision of this new world he had created. In the end, they never did, for within one year their king was dead and they now had to manage the empire on their own. This, they could not do either, and they fought each other in fierce competition for the next forty years.

The Symposium by Plato

The Symposium by Plato (ISBN 0-14-044024-0) is not exactly my kind of reading but it must be for those persons really interested in philosophy. I found the book at a fair for second-hand books and bought it because the subject is quite intriguing and I hoped to find out more about it. Besides that, Plato was the tutor of Aristotle who in turn was called to Macedonia by King Philip to teach young Alexander. Reason enough to have a close look.

The stage is set in Athens in 416 BC where a group of people from the upper class are coming together to eat, drink, and talk at the house of the poet Agathon. The other guests are Phaedrus, an aristocrat; Pausanias, the legal expert; Eryximachus, a physician; Aristophanes, the great comic poet; Socrates, the philosopher, and Plato’s teacher; and towards the end of the Symposium enters Alcibiades, a prominent statesman, orator and general – quite a mixed company.  It is being decided that, since they all recently have been drinking heavily, they will amuse themselves with talk in the form of a speech instead of the usual entertainment with flute girls and wine. Each participant will take his turn and the subject that is chosen is Love.

Each character evidently develops his own vision and opinion. Love as expressed during this symposium is mostly homosexual love between men as was current in classical Greece at that time. The one before the last speaker is Socrates who asserts that the love of wisdom is the highest level of love, introducing the bases for what is to be known later on as platonic love. At this stage, Alcibiades bursts in with some drunken companions and takes the lead. He sketches the character of Socrates and his own love and admiration for the philosopher. A last drunken party erupts and mingles, and in the end, some of the guests go home while others stay put and fall asleep. In the early morning hours only Agathon, Aristophanes, and Socrates are still awake, talking and drinking. The last “survivor” is Socrates who leaves the house as sober as when he arrived.

So much for the story itself, the philosophy has to be taken as it comes by those who want to linger on these deep reflections about the human soul. In Socrates’ speech, the question is clearly asked whether Achilles would have died to avenge Patroclus if he had not believed that his courage would live on in men’s memory. The desire for immortal renown and glory is the incentive for his action; he is in love with immortality. This book definitely leads to some deep reflection on the subject.

What I find interesting is the general concept of what we call homosexuality today and the intensity of shameless drinking. This is, of course, seen through the eyes of our modern society. True love between men prevailed and was accepted without question, something we should seriously consider when talking about Alexander’s love for Hephaistion. The heavy drinking that could go on for hours is another aspect of ancient life that we should take into account in Alexander’s life. He probably wasn’t drinking more or any less than his companions or his army buddies. Judging facts that happened more than two thousand years ago is extremely hard and I think in this aspect we could be a little more tolerant towards Alexander as a man. 

Heading for Dascylium and Sardes

After contemplating the Battle of the Granicus, I am taken further north on this trip with Peter Sommer In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, heading for Dascylium. I am a little surprised because Alexander never went to Dascylium, as he sent his seasoned general Parmenion instead. Well, I suppose it was just part of the campaign, and I take in the same rather dull, flat landscape I met on the road to the Granicus. Yet, so much history has been written in the furrows of this freshly plowed soil. Less than one hundred years before Alexander, Xenophon and what remained of his Ten Thousand marched through this countryside, a detail that cannot have been lost on Alexander.

But the Macedonian king had to press south, well aware of the threat posed by the sizable Persian navy patrolling the coast of Asia Minor. Parmenion took Dascylium, the capital of Hellespontine Phrygia, without trouble, as the guards had abandoned the town. A new satrap, Calas, was quickly put in place. From now on, the tribute Dascylium used to pay to Persia would come to Alexander.

It is hard to imagine the city on this low hill now overgrown with bright spring flowers, yellow rapeseed, and red poppies. Remains of low Greek city walls with neatly cut stones, bits of Byzantine walls in which spolia from earlier ages have been used, and then the scarce ruins of habitation. It is beyond doubt that Parmenion did a thorough job! A lovely place for a city anyway, I think.

From here, we pass but don’t stop at Cyzicus, which Alexander also conquered. It is said that he was responsible for connecting the island to the mainland. I wonder what is left of the huge amphitheater with a diameter of 150 meters, which the Romans built here in the 3rd century BC. It was intersected by a stream, making it particularly fit for naval battles – the only one of its kind in Turkey! It must have been a magnificent sight, and it is mentioned as being one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Apparently, as late as 1444, the visitor could still admire thirty-one of the immense columns in place.

My trip continues through a landscape filled with tumuli, which I am told belong to the days of King Midas (late 8th century BC). It is a long drive to Sardes, the capital of Lydia, for Alexander, a march of nearly 200 km. Apparently, the news of Alexander’s victory at the Granicus had traveled quicker than his army. Before reaching the fortified city, he was met by the leading men and their satrap, Mithrines, who not only surrendered Sardes but also its treasury. The money was most welcome, of course, since Alexander had left Pella with only sixty talents - a very poor financial situation, knowing that he had inherited a debt of 500 talents from his father and had been borrowing another 800 talents to get this expedition underway. For now, he had a financial breather.

The army set up camp on the banks of the Hermus River, about 2,5 miles from Sardes, and Amyntas was sent to take possession of the fortress. Alexander kept Mithrines in his own suite and treated him according to his rank. After taking Babylon, Mithrines was appointed governor of Armenia.

As we will see so often afterward, Alexander treated well those who did not defy him. Sardes and Lydia were now declared free from Persian rule but had, of course, to pay the same tribute to their new ruler, yet in exchange, they were allowed to observe their old customs. It was also here that, for the first time, Alexander gave orders for Lydian youths to be trained in Macedonian tactics. This practice would be repeated over the years in Lycia, Syria, Egypt, and Persia. This shows once again that Alexander never doubted he would be victorious!

Sardes, as it has reappeared from archaeology, is definitely worth a visit. On a previous visit, I had walked around the beautifully restored Palaestra and Baths with the Synagogue that was reserved for the Jews and incorporated into the Palaestra by Severus Alexander in the third century.

I was looking forward to seeing it from Alexander’s point of view. The two-story high (restored) buildings are visible from afar, and it is a pleasure to stand in front of this mixture of high Ionic and Corinthian columns, some with spiral grooves turning alternatively to the right and to the left. Inasmuch as possible, the original inscriptions have been reintegrated. It seems this complex was inspired by the Library of Celsus in Ephesus. Behind the Palaestra are the Baths with two distinctive pools, just tempting my imagination. This complex built in Imperial Style, was completed in the second century AD and remained in use till the Sassanid invasion of 616 AD.

In Alexander’s days, neither this sport's complex nor the integrated Synagogue nor the Roman villas and the public buildings across the street existed. Next to the modern road runs the monumental 18.5-meter-wide avenue built on top of the original Lydian road from the 7th-6th century BC, two meters below. So maybe Alexander walked over that Lydian road? Luckily, the modern asphalt road has been planned to run parallel to the south in order to expose the antique marble slabs of this Roman thoroughfare of the 4th-6th century that was wider than the modern road!

With my co-travelers threading in Alexander’s Footsteps, we move further to the impressive remains of the Temple of Artemis, which was never finished. Some columns have been fluted, but many were not. The construction began at the time of Alexander the Great in 334 BC, having a double row of columns surrounding an enclosed inner building.

The altar of Artemis, however, is much older than the temple itself and seems to go back to the sixth century BC. The stepped platform we see today dates from the Hellenistic period. Construction of this temple went in fits and starts and was hit by the earthquake of 17 AD. At some time, Artemis shared her sanctuary with Zeus, as indicated on an inscription honoring both. In about 150 AD, Sardes gained the title of “neokoros,” meaning “temple-warden”, which implied that it was required to have a temple dedicated to the Roman imperial family. This time, the Temple of Artemis was split in two, where Artemis and Empress Faustina were worshiped together in the front part. At the same time, Zeus and Emperor Antoninus Pius shared the back of the sanctuary. With hindsight, the base of the columns looks very much like those of Didyma. This makes sense as it is the fourth largest Ionic temple in the world after Didyma (the largest being the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, followed by the Temple of Hera in Samos).

It makes a huge difference to visit this site under the guidance of a historian like Peter Sommer, as he effortlessly points out the details of the buildings or the reasons for their inscriptions, something that a lone traveler will have a hard time figuring out.

We do not climb to the Acropolis, however, since the visible remains are mainly Byzantine and do not add to Alexander’s exploits. According to Arrian, Alexander went up there and saw the Palace of the Lydian kings and the Persian garrison. He must have been aware of his luck for not having to besiege this impregnable fortress. He decided that this was the right location to build a temple in honor of the Olympian Zeus. While he was considering the best spot, a thunderstorm broke loose, which he took as a sign sent by Zeus himself, and he made his decision accordingly. Whether or not this temple was ever built, we simply don’t know.

Alexander then made all the practical arrangements, leaving Pausanias, one of his Companions, in charge of the fortress and assigning others to specific organizational functions. Then, the news reached him of unrest in Ephesus, and it was time to resume his march south.

Philip’s Apogee and his Assassination - Macedonia forged by Philip II - 16

Philip's Apogee and his Assassination (336 BC)

Knowing Philip, he would never leave anything to chance if he could avoid it. So, to stay on good terms with his wife's brother, Alexander of Epirus, after he had given shelter to his wife, he decided that a wedding with his own daughter Cleopatra would do the trick (yes, Cleopatra was going to marry her uncle).

It was July 336 BC when the big celebration took place at Aegae, widely attended by delegations from all the Greek states, the Macedonian nobility, and even ordinary people. Philip could afford to show off now that he was the hegemon of all the Greek states, just had fathered a baby girl Europa with his last wife, and already had an advanced army force securing the front lines in Asia. On top of all that, he now had consolidated his back in Epirus.

[from http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/]

The day after the wedding proper was reserved for athletic games, to be opened with a grand procession in the theatre. Statues of the twelve Olympian gods were carried inside, followed by one of Philip himself (probably meaning that he placed himself among the gods). When everyone was seated, Philip arrived flanked by the two Alexanders: his son and his son-in-law (Alexander of Epirus), who was also his brother-in-law, but he made his entry into the theatre alone, dismissing even the royal bodyguards. He certainly wanted to show the world his full power as he walked under the gods' protection. Suddenly, Pausanias, one of the old-time guards, emerged and stabbed Philip in the chest, a mortal blow. King Philip II of Macedonia died at the age of forty-six.

My story about Philip should end here, but I can't avoid the following logical questions: who was behind this murder, and what was its real reason? Already in antiquity, speculations have run high and are still ongoing in our modern times. We'll probably never know the truth, but then do we know the truth about recent assassinations like President John Kennedy? Anyway, I'll try to sift out several facts and figures.

Let's first take a closer look at this Pausanias. He was one of Philip's bodyguards and, for some time, even his lover. But the king ended the relationship and took another lover, also by the name of Pausanias. Our murderer was very unhappy being rejected, mocking and calling names to the new lover, who confided his grief and jealousy to his friend Attalus, the warrant of Cleopatra, Philip's last wife. After the new lover, Pausanias sacrifices himself on the battlefield for king and country, Attalus seems to avenge his friend and arranges a gang-rape at his own house, after which he hands the unhappy victim over to the slaves to repeat the humiliation. Pausanias, in his despair, complained to King Philip, who did nothing more than promote Pausanias to his personal guard, for he was already planning his campaign to Asia, where he needed Attalus. When Attalus was promoted to commander in the  Asian force and later became Philip's father-in-law, it is not difficult to see Pausanias' increased anger and resentment toward both Philip and Attalus.

Both Diodorus and Justin mention that after murdering Philip, Pausanias ran towards waiting horses (not one horse but more than one) to escape. This may implicate that more than one murder was planned, and given the above, the other person might well have been Attalus. Yet who would/could have been the other murderer?

All this would imply that Pausanias assassinated his king for personal reasons, but what if he acted by order of Queen Olympias or/and Prince Alexander? When Philip decided to marry Attalus' adopted niece, the tension between him and Olympias rose to the point that she left the court and sought refuge with her brother in Epirus. At that same time, Alexander had fled Macedonia also and went to neighboring Illyria. They both may have planned revenge, although this is pure speculation. Nothing has ever been proved unless we consider that the executor Pausanias comes from Orestis, which had close relations with Epirus and Illyria. Olympias may have believed the young man and encouraged him, given her relationship with Philip, or did she really want her son to rule Macedonia instead of her husband? I doubt the last.

[Picture from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]

As to Alexander, we know he recently suffered his father's humiliation in the Pixodarus affair. He certainly will have taken his mother's resentment about Philip's wedding to Cleopatra closely at heart. Would that be reason enough to have his own father killed? Not for Alexander, as we learn to know him during his own reign, where he has given ample proof of his magnanimity. But then there are rumors that Alexander would not participate in his father's campaign east but stay home as regent of Macedonia and fulfill the role of deputy hegemon of the League of Corinth. Philip formed a clique with Parmenion, Antipater, and Attalus, of which Alexander was excluded, as these generals were bound together by several intermarriages. I am sure Philip never intended to belittle his son's role in his plans, for he desperately needed someone he could and would fully trust back home while fighting the Persians. Yet Alexander, young (he would soon turn twenty) and ambitious as he was, may have felt left out when his father was going to conquer new territories, and he would sit idle in Macedonia. Enough reason to kill the king? I can't believe it, but everybody will draw their own conclusions.

As it turned out, the year 336 BC was filled with far-reaching events to changed history forever. King Philip II was dead. Long live King Alexander III – but that's another story.

Click here to read the full story about Philip II from the beginning.

Philip's Boyhood - Macedonia forged by Philip II - 1

Philip’s boyhood (383-382BC)

Although we have a pretty good idea of what Macedonia looked like when Alexander succeeded his father in 336 BC, we have only a vague vision of this country when Philip became king some twenty years earlier. Since it was Philip who put Macedonia on the map to start with (something we generally tend to forget), I decided to investigate this chapter of history. Without his relentless efforts and strong ambition, he would not have succeeded – and let’s not forget his excellent judgment of characters and his evaluation of political and military situations, which have largely contributed to achieving his goal.

Macedonia was hardly a country to be reckoned with, and the only envy of the surrounding enemy tribes was its fertile lowlands. Greece as such did not exist yet, only leading city-states and dispersed bands of tribes constantly at war with one another. And Macedonia was no exception. However, the situation was going to change dramatically after the death of King Perdiccas III in 359 BC.

At that time, Macedonia covered a rather restricted area that started north of Mount Olympus and was squeezed between the valleys of the rivers Haliakmon in the west and Axios in the east, where they flow into the Thermaic Gulf. The most fertile part and the very heart of Macedonia was, of course, this rich coastal plain, also called Lower Macedonia, whereas Upper Macedonia stretched vaguely to the west into the remote cantons of the Illyrians. The Illyrians envied the good agricultural land and lush grasslands of the Macedonian floodplains and invaded the country on a more or less regular basis. It was during such an attack by the Illyrian King Bardylis that Perdiccas III was killed, and with him 4,000 brave Macedonian soldiers. This incursion left the door open for further invasions, for not only could the Illyrians push all the way down to the Thermaic Gulf, but neighboring tribes like the Paeonians from the north and the Thracians from the east could also seize this opportunity. And we shouldn’t forget Thebes, which was the dominant military power at that time, and Athens, which had an eye on several harbors up north serving as safe havens for their wheat ships on their way home from the Pontus Euxinus.

  

The situation in Macedonia at this point was rather dramatic. The borders were open game; its manpower was very much depleted with so many men killed in action, and to make things worse, they had lost their King and leader. Perdiccas’ son Amyntas, the heir to the throne, was only an infant, so all eyes were turned toward Philip, Perdiccas’ youngest brother, who, according to the ruling laws, should be named regent until Amyntas’ coming of age. However, hard decisions had to be made very quickly. Instead of being called to the regency, Philip, then 24 years of age, was proclaimed King by the Macedonian Assembly. King Philip II of Macedonia made his entry on the stage of history.

Now, who was this Philip? Philip was born in 383 or 382 as the third son of King Amyntas III and Queen Eurydice. The eldest son, Alexander II, lost the battle against mighty Thebes, which demanded the surrender of 50 sons of noble Macedonians as hostages, including his youngest brother Philip. Philip must have been about 13 years old at that time, just a year or so older than Alexander when he tamed Bucephalus when he was led to Thebes. He must have spent about 3 years there at the house of Pammenes, a leading general and statesman during the days that Thebes was the dominant power in Greece. According to Justin, Philip learned much about military strategy from Pammenes’ friend Epaminondas, especially when it came to the use of shock tactics and the combined attack from infantry and cavalry. He must have watched when the famous Sacred Band was training, the elite corps made of 300 Theban soldiers – supposedly 150 pairs of lovers who would fight to the death to defend their partner in battle. Epaminondas, despite Thebes being so far inland, also had solid plans to build a naval force to face mighty Athens in due time, a tactically important prowess that certainly was not lost on Philip. And there was the fact that Thebes was a polis, a true city with its benefits and shortcomings, something that was not known in Macedonia yet.

Although Philip was only a teenager, we should not forget that Macedonian princes learned by example. From an early age, they were trained in warfare, to admire courage and to aspire to excellence, schooled in the great battles of the Iliad, no doubt. Philip was no exception. We will remember how the story goes that Alexander, at the age of seven, inquired with the Persian envoys about their communication routes and their army. Philip would not have done less.

Living the daily life of a city like Thebes, Philip had witnessed the importance of military power, and although this was essential, he was also aware that a state needed to be unified and able to keep actual and potential opponents from uniting with others against him. Securing its borders was an important component of this complex pattern.

After the death of Alexander II (who was killed by his mother’s lover, Ptolemy), his brother Perdiccas III took over after murdering this Ptolemy, and during this time, Philip apparently returned to Macedonia. From the little that is known from that period, it seems that Perdiccas gave his brother part of his kingdom, probably not to rule in his place but merely to rule on his behalf. According to speculations, he would be entrusted with the territory of Amphaxitis, a strategic stretch of land between the Axios River and the Thermaic Gulf. At this time, Philip married his first wife, Phila, the daughter of Derdas II of Elimeia, probably a diplomatic alliance arranged by Perdiccas, as was his right as king. Macedonia was in turmoil, and Philip may have done his share in the fights to secure its borders, especially with the Paeonians and the Thracians. It is not impossible that he experimented with some of the military tactics he had picked up in Thebes.

So, when in 360/59 BC Perdiccas III was killed in a battle against the invading Illyrians, as mentioned above, Macedonia was faced with several threats to the kingdom’s security. And there was also the matter of succession to the throne since the dead king’s son, Amyntas, was still a youngster. The Athenians tried to interfere, pushing forward a certain Argaeus and the Thracians with a certain Pausanias who already marched towards the capital city of Pella. Given all these threats, the Macedonian Assembly unexpectedly proclaimed Philip as King, and the people swore their oath of allegiance to him. There is no question (according to Ian Worthington) that Philip was more experienced in military and administrative affairs than either the infant Amyntas or Philip’s three half-brothers (the sons of Gygaea), whose interference, if any, was inconsequential. It is possible that at this point Philip had his oldest half-brother, Archelaus, killed as a warning to the others who found shelter at Olynthus, which Philip besieged later on.

Click here to read the full story about Philip II from the beginning