BMCR 2009.06.38: Majbom Madsen on Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia

Ian Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia.  New Haven/London:  Yale
University Press, 2008.  Pp. xx, 303; 16 p. of plates.  ISBN
9780300120790.  $35.00.

Reviewed by Jesper Majbom Madsen, University of Southern Denmark
([email protected])
Word count:  1317 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-06-38.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/06/20090638.html
-------------------------------

With his two previous books on the 4th century BCE: the anthology
Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator from 2000 and Alexander the Great:
Man and God from 2003, Ian Worthington established himself as a
specialist on this turbulent and exciting period in Greek history. In
his Alexander biography IW points to Philip's ability to unite upper
and lower Macedonia and to reform the Macedonian army, which
constituted the world's most powerful fighting force. Another of
Philip's gifts was his diplomatic skill that, together with his
readiness to wage war, secured Macedonia's leading position in Greece
and the Balkans. This approach to Philip and Alexander is continued in
Philip II of Macedonia (p. xi, 2), where IW's main aim is to take
Philip out of the shadow and to demonstrate his importance to Greek
history.

IW opens by asking whether Philip was the greatest of the kings in
Europe, and concludes, in chapter 2, that he was the miracle divided
and troubled Macedonia needed (p. 14), phrases that offer a refreshing
clarification of the author's approach and provide a catchy opening to
the book. More problematic are the attempts to guard Philip's
reputation. IW assures us that Philip's and Alexander's  extensive use
of alcohol never evolved into alcoholism (p. 10-11), though there is
evidence that both, on occasion,  acted rashly and foolishly under the
influence of alcohol. An illustrative example in the case of Philip is
when he took Attalus' side in the quarrel between the latter and
Alexander:  in his attempt to discipline his son, the king drew his
sword and fell over his own legs. The incident caused Alexander to
leave Pella, thus jeopardizing the whole question of succession.

Philip's youth and accession are treated in chapter 3. The years in
Thebes are described as the period where Philip, as the "guest" of the
Theban statesman and general Pammenes, learned military tactics and
organisation from Epaminondas and by watching the Theban army train.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the military reforms Philip carried out after
his accession and to the unification of upper and lower Macedonia. The
development of new fighting techniques and armoury is treated
intensively and Philip's introduction of a well-trained and
well-organised professional army is convincingly represented as the
decisive factor which made for Philip's ability to secure Macedonian
borders and for Alexander's military success later on (p. 31).

Chapters 5-9 treat Philip's entrance on the scene of foreign politics
and the spread of Macedonian power in northern and central Greece. IW
masterfully covers the complicated diplomatic game between Macedonia
and the Greek states, offering a detailed account of the course of
events from the war of Amphipolis to the end of the 3rd Sacred War,
where Philip managed to establish Macedonia as the most powerful state
in Greece. IW's knowledge of the period is impressive, and his account
of the wars and diplomatic manoeuvres between Macedonia and Athens,
animated by Demosthenes' confrontational attitude towards Philip, are
valuable reading. In chapter 10, IW discusses Philip's invasion of the
strategically important Thrace, the success of which secured his
control over the Hellespont, as well as providing an economic and
demographic boost useful to both himself and Alexander. IW goes on to
discuss Philip's military activities and the challenge of Athenian
interests in the Propontic region, culminating with Philip's
declaration of war and the interception of the Athenian corn fleet.

Chapter 11 focuses on the final struggle between Philip and the Greek
cities leading to the end of Greek liberty. Once again, IW offers a
densely-detailed account of the events, discussing the political
situation in Athens and the struggle between Demosthenes and Aeschines
over whether Athens should oppose or come to terms with Philip. The
last part of the chapter focuses on the attempt to rally the Greek
state before the final battle at Chaeronea, where Greece lost its
independence. IW's command of both the political debate in Athens and
the Macedonian strategies before the final encounter is impressive.
Particularly interesting is the description of how it became
increasingly clear to the Athenians that a diplomatic strategy towards
Philip was never going to work and that war was unavoidable.

Chapter 12 focuses on Philip's attempt to consolidate his victory in
Greece and his role as the hegemon of Greece. IW touches upon the plan
to invade Asia. Philip presents the invasion of Asia as a joined Greek
project to liberate the Greek cities in Asia Minor and to avenge
Persia's invasion of Greece. In his discussion of Philip's plans, IW
points to the economy as an essential factor. Philip's organisation and
recent military activity were costly, and Philip needed both the money
as well as a reason to keep a standing army. To IW the invasion was
intended as a plundering expedition, with the prospect of reducing
Persia's influence in western Asia Minor and on the Greek mainland.

The assassination of Philip is discussed in chapter 13. Arguing that
Pausanias was hardly likely to have acted alone, IW discusses what
motives Olympia and Alexander might have had in the murder. Olympia
made no attempt to hide her strong feelings against Philip nor to
conceal that she was happy that Pausanias had killed the king.
According to IW, Alexander on the other hand, had no reason to fear
Philip's son by Cleopatra. That son was in line to succeed, but was an
infant, who would only reach the throne if Alexander died without heir.
Another and more plausible reason for Alexander's complicity was the
fear that if he remained in Macedonia during Philip's invasion of
Persia, he would be excluded from Philip's inner circles. IW further
nuances this picture by pointing to the importance of the job Alexander
would carry out in Macedonia and Greece, but also to the fear that he
would lose the opportunity to triumph in Asia. As rightly pointed out
by IW, we will never know, but the discussion readdresses the various
motives and possibilities, and is therefore both a fruitful and
necessary part of biographical work on Philip.

The last part of the book (Chapters 14-16) covers the years after the
assassination and draws some conclusions about Philip's life and deeds
as the king of Macedonia. Chapter 14 focuses on the first years of
Alexander's rule. Chapter 15 sees Philip in retrospect and Chapter 16
offers a comparison between Philip and Alexander. Essential to the book
is the comparison of the king and his son. IW concludes that Philip had
a significant impact on both Macedonian and Greek history in the 4th
century and argues that Philip was indeed a great king who "deserves to
live beyond the shadow of his more famous son. " This is surely true
and IW has done a great job to remind us of Philip's importance. The
fundamental question in this respect is how well the two compare. As IW
clearly shows throughout the book, it was Philip who created a forceful
Macedonia powerful enough to conquer the Balkans and Greece, and
threaten Persia. These were surely huge tasks made possible by great
military and diplomatic skills. To be sure, Alexander's invasion of
Asia and his military success were based on these achievements and
would hardly have been possible had it not been for Philip's ability to
unite Macedonia, reform the army and create a loyal corps of officers.
Yet, Alexander's defeat of the Great King and conquest of the Persian
Empire is another outstanding military achievement, difficult to
compare with any thing else. Philip and Alexander had different
starting points and achieved different things, and one may ask whether
diminishing Alexander's achievement makes Philip's greater.

IW has without doubt written an outstanding book. The strengths lie in
the author's impressive knowledge of the period, and in his engaging
way of writing, which together offers the reader a fascinating account
of what was surely one of the most exciting periods in the history of
ancient Greece.