The Inquiries of Philip II Of Macedon
On Archaic Macedon (808-359 BCE) -
When one reflects upon the annals of history and the myriad of civilizations that have emerged and disintegrated throughout the millennia – there is a seemingly endless plentitude of nation-states and political entities that have characterized the progression of man – all of which have their own fascinating, stories past. However, the closer the proximity between the rise, zenith, and fall of a civilization, often the more it encapsulates the mind, especially when we can measure all three moments within the span of a single human lifetime. Although there are innumerable bygone civilizations, there are very few that can abide by this axiom, yet one of the very few that is often grouped into this dynamic has been the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon; which meteorically rose to hegemony under Philip II, reached it’s international Zenith under his son Alexander, and disintegrated into chaos during the Wars of the Diadochi shortly after the latter’s death – all of which can be categorized as occurring within the time period of c.360-290 BCE, less than the average lifespan today.
However, due to this iconic rise-and-fall which individuals such as Ptolemy and Seleucus both were entirely present for, and eventually outlived, the centuries prior to the ascension of Philip II to the throne of Macedon are so often forgotten and overlooked when understanding the story behind Philip and Alexander – for in order to understand the gravity of their feats, and the circumstances surrounding them – we must attempt to gauge the background behind it. For Macedon, since its semi-legendary inception in the midst of the Greek Dark Ages by either Caranus or Perdicass I, Macedon was a frontier state on the outer peripheries of the Greek world – and for nearly its entire Pre-Philippian history, Macedon was considered a great many Greeks (predominantly Athenians) to be either insufficiently Greek, or outright Barbarians altogether. However, this unique fusionism and the identity as a frontier state not only helped establish the Macedonian psyche, but also shaped the various institutions, traditions, policies, and tumultuous events that permeated the troubled Kingdom. It was this frontier status fueled by both a significantly smaller Dorian ethnic population and the interesting preservation of Archaic traditions in government.
A significant factor in the pseudo-Greek nature of Macedon during this time was the almost Barbarian, or at the very least Archaic form of government, for Macedon (like other peripheral states such as Epirus) retained an old, Absolute Monarchy with limited advisory powers held by the Royal Court which included aristocratic families, and in the later years Pages of the Court (which would especially under Philip become highly illustrious and sought after position), while retaining the lack of a functioning legislative body, a well-constructed judiciary, popular mandates, and branches of government that were common in democracies, oligarchies, and even monarchies alike – further cementing a unique governing culture, in which some non-Greek families also began to hold sway in the court which further cemented the peripheral status of Macedon. This system and the perceived rudimentary nature thereof further cemented this peripheral position, alongside the perceived insignificance, instability, and severability of the kingdom from the rest of the Greek world. For the cultural insignificance of Macedon compared to other Greek states was further cemented by the frontier status, and whether it was a cause or byproduct thereof is the subject of significant debate, however the severability of Macedon from the Greek identity would only be furthered due to the fact that for much of the 5th Century BCE, beginning under Darius I, Macedon was a vassal state of the Achaemenid Persians and was ultimately subject to the will and favor of the neighboring Satrapies and the Persian Shah’s. This status quo of Macedonian subservience would remain in place and even constricting throughout the Persian Wars, before Macedon once again secured autonomy following the conclusion of the Second Greco-Persian War. Following the restoration of Macedonian independence, however, the struggling nation-state continued to suffer from the domineering influence and threats of the Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, and even fellow Greeks (with Macedon having been often subject to external Athenian influence and manipulation). Thus, the weak position of Macedon was reinforced throughout the decades.
However, it is worth noting that regarding the fiscal position and resources of Macedon, the kingdom was endowed with a plentitude of natural resources including vast reserves of timber and precious metals, alongside prosperous agricultural lands. This surfeit in natural resources however was both beneficial and detrimental to Archaic Macedon, for not only did it provide the potential if managed efficiently for an economic powerhouse, but it attracted foreign predatory armies who sought to take advantage of a comparatively underdeveloped and unstable government. This instability would only be exacerbated in the decades preceding the ascension of Philip II, for in the span of 54 years (roughly the length of the reign of Amyntas I centuries prior), 11 different men called themselves King of Macedon, with the shortest reigns lasting for less than a year. The dynamic was further complicated however by constant foreign interventions, which by 359 BCE had plundered the treasury and left Macedon on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse. Thus, in conclusion, it can be tangibly understood that the position of Archaic-Era Macedon prior to the ascension of Philip II to the throne was one of not only great penury and weakness, but one of fledgling status, disputed Greek identity, and by 359 BCE on the brink of national extinction, which had it not been for Philip, would have likely occurred. Thus, these verities further exemplify the great talent, merit, and brilliance of Philip II in converting a minuscule kingdom on the edge of the Greek World to the undisputed Greek superpower and a potential rival to the Achaemenid Empire in the coming years.
On the Rise and Reforms of Philip II -
Since the dawn of civilization, the story of human history has been littered with innumerable arduous tasks, ventures, and seemingly Sisyphean impossibilities that baffle both contemporary and modern onlookers when successfully accomplished. Among these tasks however, few emerge as more difficult and uncertain than the journey of Nation-Building, which when done well can change the course of civilization and revive a region, but when executed poorly can foster the collapse of a culture. Thus, having analyzed and internalized the nature of Pre-Philippian Macedon, the nation-building of Philip II was second to none in the Classical West, and second only to Cyrus the Great in all of Ancient Civilization when comparing the point of origin, the meteoric rise, the final result, the established durability and stability that he left behind, and his own individual role in cementing it. Yet, the nature of what made Philip successful goes beyond his own individual genius, but the ingenuity and veracity of the Philippian Reforms, which were multifaceted institutional, militaristic, socio-economic, and diplomatic reforms that restructured Macedon into the preeminent force in the Western World by his untimely death in 336 BCE. These reforms can effectively be understood as fitting into four categories, military reforms, diplomatic reforms, financial reforms, and societal/institutional reforms, all of which differentiated him from his largely ineffective, incompetent predecessors (especially his brothers). Pertaining to the first of these reforms which enabled Philip’s rise to supremacy over the Greek world, Philip II’s military reforms had begun before he was even coronated King. This began immediately after the death of Amyntas IV, for during this tumultuous period in Macedonian History, the military swayed an immense degree of influence over both the court and crown of Macedon – thus, Philip immediately secured the loyalty of the army by ensuring they take an oath of loyalty to him individually as commander-in-chief, rather than to the Crown of Macedon generally speaking.
This initial course of action was an anomaly within the Ancient world and it would mark the beginning of a more personalized style of army leadership – which was enhanced by Philip’s charismatic style of speaking, leadership, and a unique strategy which was a combination of raw talent and observation of the Theban General Epaminondas in his youth. These reforms included but were not limited to a structural enhancement of the Phalanx – particularly through the Syntagma Formation and the implementation of both larger formations and Longer Sarissa to prevent the dissemblance of the Phalanx through cavalry. Furthermore, the size of the army was increased drastically (from 10,000 to 24,000 for infantry, and from 600 to 3,500 for cavalry), rudimentary forms of army benefits were implemented and ensured, and a rigorous training program was implemented resembling the ancient equivalent of a modern standing army. These reforms alongside Philip’s real-time strategy the establishment of a well-trained, well-staffed, well-motivated, and well-insulated army that was able to defeat with relative ease everybody from the barbarians in the North to the sedentary city-states and alliances of the South.
Secondarily, regarding the diplomatic reforms of Philip II, Philip utilized numerous strategies of diplomatic prowess to not only delay potential impediments but to establish temporary alliances before eventually (either peacefully or forcefully) integrating neighboring states under the Argead Crown – which included bribes, trade deals, marriage diplomacy, and hostage diplomacy (all of which we shall observe in greater detail shortly) – and enabled for Philip to consolidate internal control and to gradually expand and emerge as the hegemon of the Greek World. Trichotomously, regarding the economic policies of Philip that enabled for the financial resurgence of Macedon, it is first worth noting that when attempting to understand archaic, often primitive methods of economics through a modern lens, we often attempt to utilize the comparative understanding and modern paradigms of economic schools and policy, many of which only had a questionable degree of veracity in the Ancient World, however, are still worth noting. A Quintessential axiom within Philip’s economic reforms was the utilization of natural resources to his diplomatic benefit, with this action entailing a significant degree of greater centralization of various mines and precious metal reserves to ensure not only a functioning economy but a functioning foreign policy. Furthermore, given the benefits that a military victory had on the treasury of a kingdom, the military victories of Philip significantly contributed to an expanded treasury and deeper coffers in Pella. Beyond centralizing mines, Philip also standardized Macedonian currency, funded internal improvements throughout his domains through war profits, and prevented bankruptcy within the Macedonian treasury by solidifying these policies as a primitive form of mercantilism.
Lastly, regarding the institutional reforms of Philip, he championed a policy of not only greater centralization but the enhancement of the Macedonian Court, which had always been a fairly antediluvian institution when compared with the rest of the Greater Greek World. Furthermore, Philip II ran a civic campaign coinciding with his conquests of “Peace and Stability”, in the Greek World, portraying the benefits and necessities of a united Greek Front against external threats, and the necessity of a single state to abrogate the decades of chaos and conflict that had become the norm in the Greek World between cities and alliances since the Persian Wars. In conclusion, it was through these reforms, these policies that Philip II was able to construct a nation with as much potential, and in as advantageous of a position as he did, for he was able to reform the military from a decaying, factionalized organism to a centralized, standing powerhouse. He transformed the diplomatic situation of Macedon from a rump state into the center of Hellenic Civilization, he restored the treasury to heights surpassing even Alexander I, and he established a platform of government that was able to catapult his son Alexander to conquer the known world. For these reforms, the ‘Philippian Reforms’ as I call them, are what enabled Philip to transform Macedon and what set him apart from his incapable, incompetent brethren who preceded him.
The Art of Philippian Diplomacy -
The art of Statesmanship – it is one that has captivated the human mind, required the human spirit, and dictated the human condition since the advent of civilization – yet it is one that is anything but constant. The Art of being a good statesman is one that has always been evolving, and always notable for its unique multifaceted nature, and yet there are very few facets thereof that carry as much nuance and complexity as the art of diplomacy and maintaining beneficial foreign affairs between nations. Few leaders, however, have been able to have as prototypical and as preternatural of an understanding of the art of Foreign affairs in an age as complex, and a position as disadvantageous as Philip II of Macedon, who managed to transform Macedon’s standing on the international stage from one on the brink of collapse to a shining beacon of progress and prosperity – as elucidated above – yet his diplomatic policy to achieve this involved a number of complex strategies and methods that allow for us to not only internalize the genius of Philip II in feigning off opponents during the inaugural years of his reign, but the standards and practices that were commonplace in Ancient Diplomacy. First, however, in order to better understand the sheer impeccability of Philippian diplomacy, we must understand the eminent foreign threats which he faced. Surrounding the small kingdom of Macedon in modern-day northern Greece, both Greek and Barbarian foes continued to loom large over the nation-state well into Philip’s reign. Perhaps the most domineering of these threats however was the Illyrians, a Paleo-Balkan Barbarian state to the North and West of Macedon, feared for their military prowess and ferocity, which was exemplified when observing the defeat and death of Perdicass III of Macedon at the hands of the Illyrians shortly before the ascension of Philip to the throne. Beyond the Illyrians however, the Paoenians to the North and the Thracians to the East posed considerable threats to the Kingdom of Macedon, meanwhile, Athenian influence and the involvement of several other Greek city-states and alliances in Macedonian Affairs posed a considerable threat to the South. Therefore, before Philip even ascended to the throne officially, he began immediately removing potential pretenders and individuals who could pose a threat to his legitimacy. Following this precipitous course of action, Philip began to implement the first of his major diplomatic practices, which was especially common when dealing with nations with an abundance of resources, were what can euphemistically be called fiscal appeasement, or unofficial tribute – yet were in modern terms tantamount to state-enforced bribery.
Philip utilized the expansive Gold and silver reserves of Macedon to effectively pay off primarily the Illyrians and Thracians to prevent an immediate invasion so he could centralize internal power and enact his Philippian Reforms before later expanding outwards and pitting the various Barbarian states against one another, alongside utilizing a certain rhetorical strategy at times of Anti-Athenian sentiment to ensure that significant payoff’s or collaborations to the maritime power would not be necessary for his stabilization of territory. Beyond these initial strategies, Philip II also understood the utility of his monarchical style of government, and the aristocratic, familial nature of most Greek City States and neighboring kingdoms to utilize a combination of marriage and hostage diplomacy. Regarding the former, Philip II to ensure greater collaboration and connection to both foreign dynasties and internal nobility, married seven wives of significant political importance – with two hailing from Epirus (Olympias and Cleopatra, arguably the two most noteworthy wives of Philip), two from the region of Thessaly, one hailing from Thrace, one from Illyria, and one from within Macedon as an internal noblewoman. These marriages not only shored up internal support but also established a greater sense of camaraderie between Macedon and the neighboring regions' political establishments, which as Philip expanded and subjugated these same nations, allowed for a solid integration under him of those who collaborated, and the persecution of those who didn’t – yet in the meantime postponed any potential direct threat to Macedon during the most vulnerable period of Philip’s reign. Regarding the latter form of diplomacy, however, hostage diplomacy was by no means unique to Philip’s reign for it was a rather commonplace practice in diplomatic maneuvering in the Ancient World, as trading fairly obscure royal/elite family members between nation-states to serve as “hostages” in order to keep fellow powers in check was a common practice, and resembled less the modern, violent nature of hostages and more served as an unofficial diplomatic role and in more favorable situations even as a de facto member of the other nations court.
This dynamic was elucidated during the adolescence of Philip II, who himself (far from being the heir apparent at first), was traded as a royal hostage in Thebes, yet was treated with kindness, was an esteemed guest, and was to a certain degree mentored by the Theban Statesman and General Epaminondas. Epaminondas himself was a master of diplomacy in his own right, who established Theban supremacy over the Greek World to a degree that was not equaled since Pericles and would not be reached again by a single power until Philip himself took the reigns as Hegemon of the Greek World. From Epaminondas, it is irrefutable that Philip II learned a great deal of knowledge and was to a unique degree molded into a first-class statesman with the diplomatic and strategic mind to cultivate hegemony. In Conclusion, the tools imparted and later mastered by Philip of diplomatic strategy, many of which were fairly new to Macedon, enabled for the prevention of foreign encroachment and allowed for Philip to enact the reforms necessary to leave a lasting impact upon the world as we know it.
On the Death of Philip II -
When one reflects upon the history of Ancient Greek Civilization, and the figures who characterized it, countless individuals come to mind. Poets and writers like Aeschylus and Homer, Statesman like Cleisthenes, Lycurgus, Solon, Pericles, and Alcibiades, Generals and strategists like Leonidas and Themistocles, and Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle – the list is seemingly endless, and to internalize the impacts of them all is a seemingly Sisyphean task. However, few men’s names have carried greater weight in their own lifetime, whose words held greater direct influence while they were still alive as Philip II of Macedon, who was the first individual in Greek history to veritably unite the Greeks under one organism, one flag, one crown, and one administration – and somebody who by their demise had established the most powerful unitary entity in Hellenic history, and who had he lived longer may very well have spearheaded an attack on the Achaemenid Empire (as he had formulated the executive planning to do so, which was coincidentally inherited by Alexander). However, all of these incredible feats tend to be dwarfed and serve far too often in the scholastic memory to elucidate to greater effect the most memorable day of Philip’s existence, which was coincidentally his last. For the assassination of Philip II has not only been memorable in that it was the climacteric and frankly unexpected end to such a consequential life but that it has often been used as one of the first starting points when discussing the reign and events that characterized the life of his son Alexander – later dubbed the Great.
However, the assassination of Philip II in 336 BCE has been shrouded with a significant degree of mystery, court intrigue, and somewhat veritable conspiracy theories surrounding motives, plots, and factors – all of which render the event itself and the aftermath so astounding for the modern viewer. The assassination itself – occurred in October of 336 BCE, during a sacred festival in the Ancient Macedonian Capital of Pella. For these festivals, commemorated both his daughter's wedding, the religious rites and ceremonies, and to a degree his own accomplishments in uniting all of Greece ahead of his long-anticipated Persian Campaign. Philip emerged onto the stage of the amphitheater, addressing a sizable audience of guests, envoys, noblemen, diplomats, dignitaries, generals, soldiers, etc. In a scene described by the contemporary scholar Robert Garland to have been “A roaring event of great ambiance, and even greater anticipation”, Philip emerged alone only to be stabbed to death by one of his bodyguards – Pausanias – who immediately thereafter attempted to escape by retrieving a horse at a rendezvous point with co-conspirators before eventually being apprehended and killed by pursuing bodyguards. Thus, shortly thereafter, Alexander consolidated control of the throne, executed potential pretenders, and in the coming weeks suppressed rebellions; most notably by sacking the city of Thebes.
However, following the assassination of Philip, a great deal of hypotheses occurred surrounding the motives and circumstances behind it – which for millennia have been the subject of considerable controversy and debate. Firstly, regarding what many often believe to be the motive behind political assassinations (foreign intervention), such as a Persian-orchestrated plot, this outcome is highly unlikely and implausible given the preparation established, clear line of succession, lack of any connections, motives, or logical associations to the crime, thus we dawn to the motives of Pausanias himself and the circumstances behind it. For several theories and conspiracies have emerged, perhaps the most notable of them is the theory surrounding Pausanias's relationship with Philip himself, which was suspected by Cleitarchus and Diodorus Siculus to be physical (despite the significant potential that this story was embellished for sensational sake), which was confusingly broken off and replaced by a new relationship between Philip and a younger man, also named Pausanias.
However, it is worth noting at this junction that affairs of this nature were somewhat common in Ancient Greek Royal Courts, yet were not an explicitly homosexual characteristic – rather many of these individuals who partook in affairs of this kind were not considered to be anomalies, in fact, some degree of same-sex conduct like this was even tolerated, as held evident through the Sacred Band of Thebes, yet according to Sir Robin Lane Fox – a pre-eminent scholar on the era, most relationships like this when restrained were accepted as common practice (however older and more flamboyant, exclusively homosexual relationships were still frowned upon by most Ancient Greeks). Returning to the motive, Pausanias (the elder), through a vague, questionable, disputable course of action may have led to the death of the younger Pausanias, which led to Philip’s Uncle-In-Law and influential confidant (also a rival of Olympias, mother of Alexander) Attalus taking some degree of revenge upon Pausanias, which has ranged in description from what Aristotle simply described as an offense which angered Pausanias, to what Cleitarchus described as a drunken act of depravity. However, in response to this, the angered and now erratic Pausanias, who was logistically unable to take revenge on Attalus, took revenge on Philip by murdering him.
However, whether this theory was devised by sensationalist pamphleteers the likes of Theopompus is debatable, and several aspects of the theory fall under significant scrutiny, for instance, the questionable accounting for co-conspirators, alongside the likelihood of embellishment of the truth for tabloid sake, or even the chronological debatability, for the course of events before the murder seemingly occurred several years prior, which would make such an emotionally driven action less likely to occur in 336 BCE. However this theory still often remains the most prevalent, yet I retain a certain degree of suspicion and consideration to an alternative theory, surrounding the potential influence and role of Olympias – mother of Alexander – in the assassination of Philip II. For not only did Olympias hold a great deal of power and influence, but she was also renowned for her ruthlessness, her sometimes vocal conflicts with Philip, and the vocal opposition to the marriage of Philip to Cleopatra (niece of Attalus, a notable rival to the family of Olympias), which also devalued her regional value and at least in her eyes posed a threat to her own and her son Alexander’s position of court supremacy. This hypothetical may have been further solidified by the peculiar death of the actual executor of whatever plot may or may not have existed, the sudden course of executions carried out by Olympias as regent, and the erection of a statue of Pausanias at the order of Olympias following Alexander’s departure from Macedon on his Asian Campaign. However, due to the antediluvian nature of the debate, and the lack of fully veritable sources for the events and the elusive motives behind them – it is irrefutable that the assassination of Philip II had a highly significant impact upon the events to come, for not only did it allow for Alexander to take the throne and to lead the campaign, but for Alexander to shape the lands he conquered in his own image, which although irrefutably brilliant, may have lacked the analytical brilliancy and structural development that characterized Philip’s reign and reforms.
On the Eulogy of Philip II -
The World we live in – is one that is characterized by innumerable axioms, customs, traditions, and practices that have defined the human condition since the dawn of civilization. Whether it be pertaining to practices of marriage, religion, philosophy, hierarchy, and communication – the human condition and the cultures herein have always been characterized by our customs, the product of civility and habit melding together. However perhaps one of the most often overlooked aspects of tradition has been the customs surrounding death, a veracity as timeless as life itself. Within the history of Western civilization, at least, few of these traditions have been as hallowed as the eulogy – which since the days of Ancient Greece involved a synthesis between a tribute to the dead, and an oratory commemorating them (an art which in my opinion is of the highest principle, due to the honoring of verbal communication – which I believe with utmost sincerity to be man’s highest art). Eulogies however, due to the rhetorical power that can lie within them, have historically often been as much about a relevant message for the living, than a tribute to the dead. Few eulogies have served as a more exceptional example of this aphorism than the Eulogy of Philip II, delivered years after his death by his son and successor – Alexander the Great. For although the eulogy itself although not perfectly preserved in its entirety, has been relayed to us through the eloquent historiography of the Roman historian and chronicler Arrian, who explicated the delivery of the Eulogy following the increasing Eastward momentum of Alexander’s army into the Indian Subcontinent and the growing weariness of the men plagued by lassitude.
However, these prior circumstances, alongside the nature of the eulogy itself do not only elucidate the political motives of Alexander and the strategic benefit of rousing his troops, but also his own complicated psychological state at the time of his delivery, and a long-unspoken mental conflict between Alexander and his own archetypal father, which was potentially masked through megalomania. The eulogy itself begins, not, like most modern Eulogies with an aphorism pertaining to the relevant deceased individual, but an address regarding the recent hardships surrounding the campaign into India, to what Alexander believed to be the edge of the Known World. Within the beginning of his speech, he notably utilized the rhetorical strategy of selectionism to present an image of free choice up to the individual soldier, however utilizing his rhetoric and aptly timed eulogy to seemingly demonstrate that marching onwards into the subcontinent was the honorable, right, great thing to do. He finally began, at the second paragraph, to discuss Philip and to address the myriad of milestones achieved during Philip’s reign – stating; “Let me begin, as is right, with my father Philip . . .”.
He begins to address the unfavorable and disadvantageous situation which the Macedonian people had been seemingly trapped in for centuries, and the proverbial savior that Philip was to this kingdom that seemingly had a lifespan shorter than that of most livestock, stating; “He found you wandering about without resources, many of you clothed in sheepskins and pasturing small flocks in the mountains, defending them with difficulty against the Illyrians, Triballians and neighboring Thracians”. Alexander then went on to address the civilizing efforts and grand reforms of Philip, summarizing his achievements and the implications of his Philippian Reforms, stating; “ He gave you cloaks to wear instead of sheepskins, brought you down from the mountains to the plains, and made you a match in war for the neighboring barbarians, owing your safety to your own bravery and no longer to reliance on your mountain strongholds. He made you city dwellers and civilized you with good laws and customs.” Alexander effectively continued from this point to continue on with Philip’s reforms to the military, Macedonian institutions, the overall quality of life, and the great preparation for a campaign against the old Persian foe following his subjugation of Greece. Eventually finishing off by stating; “He was appointed commander-in-chief of all Greece for the campaign against the Persians, but preferred to assign the credit to all the Macedonians rather than just to himself”. Thus, we see what is the seemingly picturesque, eloquent conclusion to a eulogy of a man whose legacy is as domineering as any great king or general in antiquity.
However, it is here that Alexander goes on with one more sentence, which is incredibly elucidatory not only for the purpose of Alexander’s rhetoric and agenda, but also as an expose into the psyche of Alexander and his own internal conflicts. He concludes the eulogy by stating; “Such were the achievements of my father on your behalf; as you can see for yourselves, they are great, and yet small in comparison with my own”. Now, a statement of this extreme brevity given the proper background, circumstances, intention, and knowledge, could be analyzed for an entire Psychology Course, however for brevities’ sake we can understand two main takeaways – both rooted in an apparent style of Megalomania that although maybe not initially so prevalent, had increased as Alexander’s campaign progressed. First of all, it was designed to demonstrate his perceived grandeur in his accomplishments when compared to his own – a fact that was designed to not only inspire great admiration and loyalty from his soldiers but also, at least I believe, from a select audience of individuals that may have even included himself. This axiom brings us to our second point, that beyond Alexander’s motives of motivation, beyond dwarfing his fathers’ accomplishments when comparing them to his own, exemplified a unique trait of potential insecurity fueled by Alexander’s own internal conflict surrounding the legacy, reputation, and towering figure that was his father.
This could only have been exponentially worsened given the situation, in which many of his more experienced, elderly commanders were beginning to doubt his intentions and ability, especially when comparing his actions, choices, and style to Philip, as murders of court officials were increasing and Alexander’s own paranoia began to run rampant, yet this trend, I believe, was merely the awakening of a long-dormant insecurity surrounding Alexander’s own perception of himself. Therefore, in conclusion, we can observe the complex motives, dynamics, and consequences of a eulogy written for seemingly everybody but the man himself, yet one so telling on his legacy not only to the world, but to the mind of his own strategically significant son and successor. For this, was the legacy of Philip II of Macedon, one that although ancient to us, still echoes into the present day.