Alexander’s pleasant body odor

What a subject for discussion! Well, anyway, I want to share my opinion on this matter that seems to have occupied the mind of many ancient and modern authors alike.

Time and again, I read how people around Alexander were surprised by his body fragrance and many ancient writers find it exceptional enough to mention it. But then Alexander is known to have taken a bath whenever possible, using a nearby stream or lake when the comforts of home were not at hand. Examples are plentiful.

Plutarch is by far the most informative on this subject and talks about it at the very beginning of his book “The Life of Alexander the Great”, where he gives us a detailed description of Alexander’s appearance. “… he was fair and of a light colour, passing into ruddiness in his face and upon his breast. Aristoxenus in his Memoirs tells us that a most agreeable odour exhaled from his skin, and that his breath and body all over was so fragrant as to perfume the clothes which he wore next him; the cause of which might probably be the hot and adust temperament of his body.” He proceeds with a rather questionable theory developed by Theophrastus about sweet smells in hot temperatures that doesn’t sound very convincing and then he continues “His temperance, as to the pleasures of the body, was apparent in him in his very childhood, as he was with much difficulty incited to them, and always used them with great moderation; though in other things he was extremely eager and vehement, and in his love of glory, and the pursuit of it, he showed a solidity of high spirit and magnanimity far above his age”. It seems that Plutarch has been widely quoted on this subject, from antiquity to modern times and may well be the only description of Alexander that has come to us.

And then there is the by far best known episode of Alexander bathing in the cold waters of the Cydnus River near Tarsus, in today’s southeastern Turkey. Plutarch tells us that he caught a “sickness that detained him”, “which some say he contracted from his fatigues, others from bathing in the river Cydnus, whose waters were exceedingly cold”.

Arrian in his Campaigns of Alexander the Great (Book 2, 4) is more informative about this episode, which he draws from Aristoboulos. “About this time Alexander had a bout of sickness. The cause of it, according to Aristoboulos’ account, was exhaustion, but others say that he plunged into the river Cydnus for a swim, as he was sweating with heat and could not resist the pleasure of a bathe. The Cydnus runs right through Tarsus, and as it rises in Mount Taurus and flows through open country, its waters are clear and cold; the result was that Alexander was seized by a convulsion, followed by high fever and sleepless nights.”

And finally our newspaper reporter from antiquity, dear Quintus Curtius (History of Alexander, Book 3,14-15), writes a nice story about this event: “The river Cydnus, …, flows through the middle of Tarsus; it was then summer, the heat of which burns no other shore more than that of Cilicia with the sun’s fires, and the hottest time of the day had begun. The clear water of the river tempted the king, who was covered with dust and at the same time with sweat, to bathe his body when it was still heated; accordingly, laying off his clothing in the sight of the army – thinking that it would also be fitting if he should show his men that he was content with attention to his person which was simple and easily attained – he went down into the river. But hardly had he entered it when his limbs began to stiffen with a sudden chill, then he lost his colour, and the vital warmth almost his entire body. His attendants caught him in their arms, looking like a dying man, and carried him almost unconscious into his tent.” The story continues in the same theatrical style, of course.

Whatever the reason for Alexander’s sickness (often assimilated to malaria which prevailed in this area till early 20th century) the fact is that Alexander did plunge into the river. Someone who is not accustomed to it would not have even considered setting a foot in that icy stream.

Plutarch treats us also to another story when Alexander marched from Babylon to Ecbatana and saw “the place where fire issues in a continuous stream, like a spring of water, out of a cleft in the earth, and the stream of naphtha … . This naphtha, in other respects resembling bitumen, is so subject to take fire …”. This was something new and I’m sure everyone in Alexander’s army wanted to play with this fire, although Plutarch blames “the barbarians” for turning the whole street in one continued flame. The interesting passage for me is where he says, “Among those who used to wait on the king and find occasion to amuse him when he anointed and washed himself, there was one Athenophanes, an Athenian, who desired him to make an experiment of the naphtha upon Stephanus, who stood by in the bathing place…”. Well, he set the poor man on fire with one single drop of the stuff causing that “Alexander was in the greatest perplexity and alarm for him, and not without reason; for nothing could have prevented his being consumed by it, if by good chance there had not been people at hand with a great many vessels of water for the service of the bath…”. So here once again, everything was made ready for Alexander’s bath, not just one single jar of water by the way!

  

Diodurus Siculus (Library of History) is very meager when it come to personal information about Alexander. The Cydnus episode is entirely left out and there obviously is no mention at all about the discovering of oil and the experiments involved. In fact, I found only one single sentence about bathing which is right after the Battle of Issus “The royal pages now took over the tent of Darius and prepared Alexander’s bath and dinner ….” (Book 17, 36-3).

It is this repeated bathing and extreme cleanliness that made me think of Alexander’s pleasant body odor. He definitely was an exception and must have been perceived as an eccentric to his servants and army alike. I have never heard of any Macedonian soldier bathing or enjoying a refreshing swim in some river or at the seaside although Alexander’s father, King Philip, had decreed that his men should use cold water only – hot water being the privilege for women who had just given birth (see Ian Worthington – Philip II of Macedonia). This being the case, I doubt that many would have ventured in the cold rivers of Macedonia or Thracia. Most would have stayed out of the water as armies have done over the centuries, only washing up by the time they went home, for instance.

So, in the end, my belief is that Alexander did not have an especially fragrant skin but that because of his regular bathing, he simply carried a pleasant smell among the generally unwashed bodies of his entourage. That even his clothes were impregnated with his body odor is only normal, but it must have been a striking phenomenon in his days.

Philip's Macedonia also included today’s Bulgaria

Pushing aside the ongoing discussions between Greek Macedonia and the  Republic of Northern Macedonia, it is time to focus on Bulgaria, which was once part of the realm created by Philip II of Macedonia.

It seems that finally, the FHW (Foundation of Hellenistic Work) and the NAIM-BAS (the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Sofia) are working together on the excavations at Halka Bunar, just northeast of Plovdiv, i.e., the city of Philippopolis founded by Philip II. In his days, the Odrysian Thracians lived here, and today’s closest big city is Stara Zagora, which the Romans called Augusta Traiana.

It is one of those forgotten corners of archaeology, at least in our Western world, for we have little or no idea of all the excavations that occurred and still occur in Bulgaria. Halka Bunar was discovered by accident, as is usually the case, in 1999. Since then, four ceramic kilns, a series of loom weights, and great quantities of ceramics, both local and imported Greek and commercial amphorae (carrying wine from Knidos in today’s southwestern Turkey), were found next to figurines and coins. These coins indicate that the site flourished mainly around the end of the 4th century/early 3rd century BC since they were stamped with the effigies of Philip II, Seuthes III, Lysimachos, Cassander, and Demetrios-Poliorcetes – another proof that Halka Bunar maintained constant and close contact with Macedonia and the Greek colonies in Thracia.

More importantly, Halka Bunar was located almost exactly at the crossroads of important Roman roads, which probably followed older Hellenistic or Classical routes of communication. One of these roads ran from the western Balkans to the coast of the Black Sea and Byzantium in the east, as it passed through Serdica and Philippopolis. The other road ran up from Abdera and Mesembria on the Aegean coast in northeastern Greece, crossing the Rhodopes Mountains (the backbone of today’s Bulgaria) all the way to Seuthopolis, the Thracian capital city founded by Seuthes III near today’s Kazanlak in Bulgaria.



Besides what is already well-known about the Greek colonies along the coast of the Black Sea, little do we know about the Greek influence in this part of Bulgaria, and the excavation here in the area of the Odrysian Thracians hopefully, will shed some light on their Hellenization and that of the neighboring peoples.

Wait and see what this will reveal …

Plovdiv, King Philip’s Philippopolis

Hot news in Bulgaria’s newspaper The Sofia Echo of 9 December 2011, is the latest discovery made by road-workers in the centre of Plovdiv, one of the main cities of Bulgaria that was founded by nobody less than King Philip II of Macedonia and which he named after himself – hence Philippopolis.

[picture from the Sofia Echo]

I read that a major part of a fortress wall has been located during work on the heating infrastructure, measuring 50 meters in length and nearly two meters wide, adding an important element to the lay-out of Philip’s city. According to the archaeologists called to the site, this wall dates from the last quarter of the 2nd century AD, so definitely Roman. Other large structures seem to refer to a tower or an entrance building but this cannot be confirmed as the remains disappear under a building on a busy street.

Unfortunately, since the roadwork has to be carried out as planned, the wall will be covered over again in order to complete the job. That is the never-ending story of any city that is built and rebuilt on top of its antiques remains. Exciting stuff though…

Alexander's Isthmus, Tyre, Lebanon

This is old news (early 2008), but I didn’t come across this information before and maybe my readers didn’t either, so I think it is important enough to be stressed here.

By now we all know that Alexander the Great built a half-mile long causeway to connect the island of Tyre to the mainland in today’s Lebanon in 332 BC. This achievement goes down in history as one of the most daring engineering projects of its time and many theories have circulated about how successfully or unsuccessfully Alexander managed the construction of this dike.

We owe it to the recently developed geoarchaeology to shed additional and important light on this enterprise. Nick Marriner, member of France’s National Center of Scientific Research and his colleagues published a study in which they show that Alexander took advantage of a natural sandbank located between the mainland and the island. With today’s technology of underwater studies and satellite pictures, this knowledge seems pretty obvious but it certainly was not the case in Alexander’s days! It turns out that the submerged sandbar was lying only one or two yards under the water level, which definitely must have been most helpful in the construction of this imposing causeway.

A good two thousand years later, we are able to conclude that this causeway altered the coastal currents on both northern and southern side of Tyre where the constant flow of sand helped to make this connection permanent. In fact, it reshaped Lebanon’s coastline forever.

The engineers from antiquity never cease to amaze me, and with them Alexander himself, of course.

Tyre, without Alexander the Great?

I’m all ears when reading this article from PressTV about the recent discovery of five Byzantine tombs near the city of Tyre in today’s Lebanon – a new attraction for tourists no doubt. These marble tombs came in different sizes and are said to belong to the 14^th century, rather late in the Byzantine time-frame if you ask me.

What I don’t understand, however, is that this article talks about the old Byzantine route that connected the original island of Tyre to the mainland for it gives the impression that it was build at that time. I’m sorry to disappoint the Byzantine believers, for the very first connection between the island of Tyre with the mainland was the doing of Alexander the Great.

Five Byzantine tombs discovered in south Lebanon par presstv

This powerful strongly fortified city refused to let Alexander in on his march south along the eastern Mediterranean in 332 BC, leaving him no choice but to lay siege on it. Yet, Tyre being an island and enjoying the protection of the Great King of Persia, the people felt pretty secure inside its walls, under the wings of a substantial Persian fleet. Alexander had disbanded most of his own navy and the handful of ships he had kept were obviously no match. So he decided to build a causeway connecting the island to the mainland, a tedious and dangerous operation as Tyre had no intention to surrender. The Tyrians put up a fierce fight, maneuvering their ships in serious attacks, and even pouring hot sand over the approaching Macedonian forces – a horrible death for the soldiers when the sand settled underneath their harness and burned their skin! It took Alexander full seven months to finish this mole and when he finally entered Tyre he knew no mercy.

But, back to this article, I read further that Tyre knew “many civilizations” which are named as the Phoenicians, the Romans and the Byzantines, but they don’t mention the Greeks and certainly not Alexander the Great! How could they omit such an important personality and such an important phase in their history! The tombs however are said to be found near the Greek Palaestra, so the Greeks were there after all? A rather incoherent story, to which the last line adds even more confusion mentioning that the city’s history goes back over 5,000 years!

A good attempt to fill a newspaper column, but entirely unconvincing!

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 wives and marital conflicts - Macedonia forged by Philip II - 15

Philip’s wives and marital conflicts (337 BC)

We know or hear very little about the first five wives of Philip before Olympias. It is interesting to note that all four of them spoke Greek (Phila, Philinna, Nicesipolis, and Olympias) and two did not (Audata and Meda). How historians managed to find that out, I wonder. Nicesipolis died soon after childbirth, but all the others were apparently living at court in Pella (see: The Many Wives of Philip II.). Olympias had a special status because she was the mother of the heir, Alexander. The other ladies had given birth to a daughter, except the retarded Arrhidaeus. Since these marriages had happened rather early in his kingship and for political reasons, one may wonder how closely Philip kept in touch with them.

In 337 BC, at the age of 45, Philip announced his marriage to Cleopatra. She was an orphan and had been adopted by Attalus, one of Philip’s generals of noble origin, as his niece. Rumor had it that Philip fell in love with the girl, but speculations ran in a different and more serious direction. As Philip was getting ready to invade Asia, he needed one or more heirs to ensure his succession, for betting on Alexander alone did not offer enough security. This very idea will not have been well accepted by Olympias, fearing that a son of Cleopatra could displace Alexander in the longer term, of course.

[picture from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]

The wedding took place, probably a typical Macedonian affair with an abundance of wine flowing between the men. I think that even to their own standards, they all got pretty drunk. Anyway, at a certain point, Attalus, now father-in-law of his king, proposed a toast to the bride and groom, wishing them a legitimate Macedonian heir. It is not difficult to picture Alexander’s reaction, who felt deeply hurt by the insinuation that Attalus (and who knows who else) considered him a bastard! A fiery argument broke out, and the king tried to intervene but had probably been drinking too much himself as he took sides with Attalus and demanded excuses from Alexander. As we can expect, Alexander refused. He left the room, picked up his mother, and took her to her brother in Epirus. He himself sought refuge in Illyria. 

Now, there is a theory by which Olympias tried to convince her brother to revolt against Philip, while Alexander might have worked the mind of the Illyrians in the same direction, but nothing is proven. Eventually, Philip hired an actor (as was customary to settle differences), Demaratus of Corinth, who managed to bring Alexander back to Pella. Yet this must have left quite a bitter aftertaste on both sides.

It is rather clear that Alexander was accepted as Philip’s heir at the age of fourteen when Aristotle became his tutor. There is no trace to include, for instance, Amyntas, the son of Perdiccas III and true heir to the throne that Philip now occupied, in Aristotle’s lessons, yet when Alexander became king, he had Amyntas executed. It is also a fact that Alexander took over the regency of Macedonia at sixteen while his father was campaigning, and at eighteen, Philip trusted him to lead the cavalry at Chaeronea. But despite all that, Philip was still father and king and did not tolerate anyone, even his own son, to act against his will. A clear example is that of the Pixodarus affair.

Pixodarus was the ruler of Caria (the area of Bodrum) who had kicked his sister Ada, the widow of the previous ruler, from the throne while remaining submissive to the Persian King. But Persia was in turmoil after eunuch Bagoas murdered Artaxerxes III and, in the ensuing confusion, Pixodarus thought it wise to seek support from Philip, an interesting consideration that fitted Philip’s plans to march east. Pixodarus offered his daughter, Ada, in marriage, and Philip, in exchange, presented the retarded Arrhidaeus. The pact was accepted. But Alexander felt his father had left him out and decided to act on his own, offering himself as a marital candidate to Pixodarus, who, of course, could not have asked for a better deal! When Philip got vent of this maneuver behind his back, we can imagine how infuriated he became. The entire agreement with Pixodarus was called off, and Philip seriously reprimanded his son by exiling several of his closest friends from Pella. That must have been quite a blow for Alexander!

These events clearly illustrate that all was not running smoothly between father and son, which may have led to the conclusions about the true murderers of Philip the next year.

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

Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army by Donald W. Engels

Strangely enough, this is the only book ever (at least to my knowledge) presenting a serious study of the logistics related to such an extensive campaign as Alexander’s conquests of Asia. We take his expeditions for granted as he moves from one battlefield to the next and from one city or fortress to the next one, but there is so much more involved! In his Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (ISBN 0520042727), Donald Engels underlines a considerable amount of facts and figures to make you look at it from a very different angle.

As he takes his reader treading in Alexander’s footsteps, Engels makes me discover what accurate preparations for such campaigns meant – and I’m certainly not the only one!

I had no idea, for instance, that Alexander would plan to cross to Asia at the right time of the year to reap the upcoming harvest to get enough food for his men and fodder for his horses and pack animals. Engels calculated the daily quantity of food and water each man needed based on a thorough analysis made by the American Army. He did the same for the pack animals and the horses. If you multiply those quantities by the number of men and beasts multiplied by the number of days such provisions should last, you obtain unbelievable figures!

I had no idea horses needed a full day's rest after trudging on for four, a maximum of five days! Unlike us human beings, they cannot go on day after day.

I had no idea that when Alexander split up his forces during the winter months, the main thought behind this decision was to ensure enough forage for man and beast. This was the case between Gordion and Lycia in 334-333 BC or between Bactra, Maracanda, and Nautaca in 328-327 BC.

I had no idea that timing was so basically tributary of the terrain. One example is when Alexander has to retrace his steps across the Pillars of Jonah Pass because the Persian King Darius showed up on his back near Issus. Engels has figured out that at its narrowest part, the pass would allow only two cavalry horses or four infantrymen to march through simultaneously. Setting a pace of one such entity per second, multiplied by the number of troops, he manages to produce an irrefutable timetable. An amazing conclusion when you read that Alexander fanned his troops out almost immediately to be in place to face the Persian army!

And finally, I had no idea how accurate Alexander’s bematists were. They are rarely mentioned in any history book. Still, it is beyond belief to read how precise their step counts were, even over long distances, matching almost exactly today’s equivalent in English miles.

Donald Engels consulted ancient authors like Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, and many modern writers. Interestingly, he also consulted the notes and topographic maps made by the English when they crisscrossed the regions of Afghanistan and India, for instance. The location and usage of the old Royal Persian Roads and the ancient Silk Road are other precious assets.

This all means that in the end, Engels can retell Alexander’s conquests based on all the facts he collected from these different sources, which he analyzed and translated into realistic figures leading to a practical day-by-day progress of the king’s troops! A titanic job, but a very rewarding one!

He shares his theories and mathematics with the reader in many additional comparative tables, including an analysis of Alexander’s troops at different times of his conquests. Detailed local maps further clarify the king’s march through fertile valleys, skirting deserts, and crossing mountain ranges toward newly founded Alexandrias. A few Appendixes provide extra information about food rations, the battlefield of Issus, the horrible march through the Gedrosian desert, etc.

For those who really want to take a closer look at the genius of Alexander, this is a must-read!

Philip’s hegemony and his plans for Asia - Macedonia forged by Philip II - 14

Philip’s hegemony and his plans to cross over to Asia (337 BC)

Although at first sight, the Greeks could make their own decisions within the frame of the synedrion, it was definitely Philip as hegemon who was pulling the strings – he was the one who had all the power.

This was clearly illustrated at Olympia, where Philip commissioned the building of a splendid Philippeon, a large circular tholos counting 18 Ionic columns on the outside and nine Doric ones on the inside. A statue of Philip, slightly larger than life-size, would stand in the center, surrounded by his parents (Eurydice and Amyntas), his wife Olympias, and his son Alexander. The architect was Leochares of Athens, who had worked on the famous Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. This Philippeon was located in the sacred area and must have caught the eye of all the visitors by its sheer shape (the only round building in the sanctuary of Olympia) if not size. It may have looked like a thank-you to Zeus for his recent victory at Chaeronea, but it most certainly showed off Philip’s power and that of Macedonia.

A second meeting of the Synedrion was held that same spring in Corinth to officially elect Philip as hegemon. This is when he announced his plans to invade Asia as part of a pan-Hellenic plan to liberate the Greeks of Asia Minor from Persian rule and to punish the Persians for sacking Athens some one hundred and fifty years before. This is what he proclaimed, while we may wonder whether it was his dire need for money that instigated this decision. We know he made huge profits from his several gold and silver mines (more than 1,000 talents a year from Crenides alone), but vast amounts went into his army. His court in Pella cannot have come cheap, either with all the women and guest-friends. And then there were all the bribes he paid to influential statesmen and the many awards he lavishly granted for building temples, fortifications, etc. It’s interesting to read a comment made by Diodorus that “Philip used gold more than arms to enlarge his kingdom”, which tells a lot. We all remember that Alexander when he set out to Asia had no more than 70 talents in his treasury and that he had to borrow 600 talents on top of that – clear proof that Philip’s money was not there for the taking, although he somehow always had managed to use the income from one campaign to finance the next one.

Now, the reason why Philip went to Asia is another interesting question. There are several theories, as always, but the most likely is that Philip wanted to win the cities of Asia Minor over to Greece as the country needed agrarian land (it might even be a place where the Greeks could dispose of their unwanted or disreputable elements!). On the other hand, he had a golden opportunity to expand his own empire and acquire more wealth.

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

Common Peace or League of Corinth - Macedonia forged by Philip II - 13

The Common Peace or the League of Corinth (338-337 BC)

Philip now had to deal with the fate of the states he conquered. The Thebans came first, obviously, I would say. They had to pay a ransom for those killed during the battle; the Thebans taken prisoner were sold as slaves. In the west, he soon controlled the entire north-south route from the Gulf of Corinth all the way to Epirus.

Athens was an entirely different ballgame. The king sent a delegation with an offer of peace (once again), followed by an official embassy led by nobody less than Alexander in the company of Antipater and Alcimachus. They took the ashes of the cremated Athenians from the battlefield with them, as well as the two thousand Athenian prisoners taken at Chaeronea for which no ransom was demanded. They only requested that an Athenian embassy would go to Philip to discuss a mutual peace. Why Philip was so lenient towards Athens is a question that remains unanswered (Alexander also treated them differently from the other cities), but one important reason may have been his plans to invade Asia. He could hardly set out to punish the Persians for destroying Athens if he himself were to attack and loot the city now. After two years of warfare, both parties finally agreed on a treaty of friendship and alliance. The Athenians went even as far as conferring citizenship to Philip and Alexander, which by itself was not an exceptional gesture but it shows they made a step towards pleasing Philip. They even erected an equestrian statue of him on the Agora.

With peace restored in central Greece, Philip could and should now focus on the Peloponnese, where Sparta still had the power (and probably the ambition) to create an uproar – something the king could do without if he were to cross over to Asia. The Spartans remained stubborn, and since Philip did not want to engage in another war, he simply isolated Sparta by winning the surrounding states to his cause. Simple but effective.

That winter, Philip summoned all the Greek states to send their delegates to Corinth. There was nothing else they could do but comply, and soon the Community of the Greeks (to koinon ton Hellenon) was born, the treaty we call The League of Corinth. I’m amazed at how timely and topical the concept and the language of this treaty sound! Our European “Union” can still learn from this and I feel it is worth taking a closer look at its contents.

[picture graciously shared by Jim]

Each state individually had to swear not to harm any other member of the Common Peace (or Philip or his descendants, for that matter) and not to interfere in their internal affairs. They also swore not to become allies with any foreign power that could damage any member of the Treaty. No member could undertake any operation that might endanger the peace or overthrow its constitution. It sounds so simple, so logical, and yet, still today, a near impossibility.

A new council (synedrion) headed by a hegemon (this was evidently to be Philip) was created to enforce the peace, and each state had to send a number of council members elected by its own political organs to the synedrion’s meetings. This council would decide by a majority vote on all military, financial, domestic, and foreign matters of the league. In fact, this synedrion was the final authority to settle any dispute between individuals or between member states. They had to help each other if one of the members was attacked, but were not allowed to accept support from foreign powers. Whoever would not adhere to these basic rules would face serious reprisals.

The very first meeting was held that same winter in Corinth, and the Greeks (except Sparta, of course) all voted in favor of Philip’s settlement. This done, the members went home, and Philip returned to Pella. He had finally defeated the Athenians, paralyzed the Thebans, and neutralized the Peloponnese; in short, Greece was now his. Before Philip, Greece as such did not exist except for an agglomeration of several cities and city-states. We owe the first national state ever created to Philip, and this was Greece – an aspect that is generally forgotten or belittled, unfortunately. 

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