Victory of Chaeronea of Philip II

When Philip swept south with his army in November 339, he hoped to rush the Thebans into honouring their alliance and letting him through into Attica. The Thebans listened instead to Demosthenes and to their own instinct of self-preservation. The Greek alliance became something formidable with the accession of Thebes, and Philip was forced, as a contemporary orator put it with only a mild exaggeration, “to stake his all on the issue of one short day.” Chaeronea was a famous victory, gained by decisive blows of Philip’s cavalry. His real skill as a general can be seen, though dimly, in a manoeuvre of controlled retreat aimed at dislocating the advancing Greeks and creating gaps for the cavalry to strike. By winning this battle he had won the war.

In the various peace treaties with the Greek states, Thebes had to admit a Macedonian garrison, and its democratic constitution was replaced by a pro-Macedonian government; but Athens suffered neither invasion of its territory nor interference with its democracy and was not disarmed by dismantling of the walls or surrender of the navy. For Philip, Athens was the one Greek state from which he needed not neutrality or unwilling alliance but active cooperation. All past experience had shown that wars against Persia succeeded only when the Persians were denied the use of the Aegean, and for this the great Athenian navy was the first need.

In Greece (outside Thessaly), Philip could have had no illusions about his own unpopularity, except among those of the well-to-do who were attracted by his court and his patronage; some cities also (especially the neighbours of Sparta) were glad to lean on Macedonia for support against an ancient enemy. Philip intended to involve all the Greeks with the Persian war. So Isocrates had advised him eight years before; but on the details of the ways and means he had no advice to offer. Philip himself organized the Greeks now to keep the peace with him and with each other and to support him in the Persian war overseas. In the constitutional details of his settlement of Greece he may well have had the help of Aristotle, free from his recent duties as tutor of the young Alexander.

The League of Corinth

Philip’s so-called League of Corinth, established in 337, was an organization designed to preserve and perpetuate a general peace (koinē eirēnē), inaugurated when the delegates of all the states of Greece (except Sparta) and the islands swore to abide by it and to recognize Philip as president (hēgemōn) for this purpose. The general peace was a political innovation of the Greeks themselves, used several times in the past 50 years in attempts to stabilize affairs while promoting this or that hegemony. The peace had never lasted long because the leading Greek states had neither the power nor the mutual trust to create an effective organization for collective action against aggressors.

Philip designed a council of representatives from all the states (synedrion), which was empowered to deliberate and decide on action to be taken in the event of the peace being broken or threatened. After the decisions were made, their execution lay with Philip as hēgemōn. The states were under obligation to supply troops or ships to the hēgemōn on demand, by quotas corresponding to their voting power on the council. Though neither Philip nor Macedonia had representatives on the council, it was the knowledge that the hēgemōn had the power of Macedonia in his hand that made this organization effective. As it happened, Corinth, where the inaugural meeting was held, was one of only three Greek cities with a Macedonian garrison, a fact the significance of which can have been lost on nobody.

Last years

Philip was wise, no doubt, to build on the foundation of the earlier practice of the Greeks themselves and also to refrain from organizing them in any permanent alliance that would have recalled too much the unpalatable experiences of the past. He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians; and he cannot possibly have seen the settlement of Greece—as most modern historians have seen it—as the culmination of his life’s work. For him it culminated nothing and was not even an end in itself but only a means. Chaeronea had brought the Greeks to order, and his plans required that they should stay in order now. The synedrion at Corinth heard his program for a Persian war and duly acclaimed it early in 337. Early the next year an advance force of the Macedonian army crossed to Asia Minor. Philip would lead the grand army into Asia presently, and the Greeks would be with him.

This meteor fizzled out. The subtle, pliant, patient, calculating diplomatist, master of timing in politics and war, ended his life in a tale of irresponsible incompetence. The historian Theopompus, who saw Philip at close quarters, made much of his vices, his love of drink and debauchery, and his wild extravagance with money. Allowance made for this notably faultfinding and puritanical writer, Philip’s character did contain some real ambiguities, extending into his domestic life. His “political marriages” were mostly opportune symbols of goodwill toward princes or groups worth conciliating, but his last marriage, in 338, to the Macedonian Cleopatra, led to a final break with Olympias, his queen, who left the country accompanied by the crown prince Alexander. Though Olympias was unpopular at court and Cleopatra’s connections were powerful and important, it was not “politic” to put the succession in jeopardy. Philip showed that he had never intended this result by taking the trouble to be reconciled with Alexander. The tradition that makes him infatuated with Cleopatra is probably right. If so, he fatally misjudged the amount of harm that could be done by marrying her.

With the preparations far advanced for the crossing into Asia, a grand feast was held at Aegae to celebrate the wedding of Philip’s daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus (brother of Olympias). There Philip was assassinated by Pausanias, a young Macedonian noble with a bitter grievance against the young queen’s uncle Attalus and against Philip for denying him justice. This was the official explanation, and Pausanias himself could add nothing to it; he was killed on the spot. Suspicion fell on Olympias and Alexander, those with most to gain from Philip’s death, and many modern interpreters have followed it. Aristotle, however, clearly did not believe it. In his Politics a few years later he used this incident as an example of a monarch murdered for private and personal motives—which would have been a puerile indiscretion if either he or the world in general had ever taken the canard seriously.