We have seen that Greece was never a unified nation. There was even
dispute, throughout the history of the Greeks as a people, as to just
who were included under the caption “Greek.” In particular the question
rose in reference to the Macedonians when they came to power under the
leadership of King Philip, father of Alexander the Great. The Macedonians
spoke a dialect of the Greek language, and Philip ardently contended
that he and his people were entitled to be considered as true Greeks.
The claim was hotly contested so long as the people of Greece, in the
narrower sense, had the power to hold out against the man whom they
regarded as a usurper; but in the end the claim of Philip received
official recognition, and his subjugation of Greece was not regarded as
the conquest of a foreigner, but merely as establishing the hegemony of
one Greek state over the others, Macedonia now taking that leadership
which had been held in turn by Athens, Sparta, and Thebes.
In the broadest view this way of regarding the Macedonians as really
Greeks was, perhaps, not illogical. The question of the exact origin
of the Hellenes is still much in doubt, but the more the matter is
investigated, the more certain it becomes that this wonderful people was
a mixed race. Throughout history everywhere, the ethnologist points out
that it is the mixed race which develops the greatest potentialities; and
the case of Greece is no exception to the rule. One speaks of the Greeks
as Aryans, and, therefore, naturally associates them with the Persians
and Indians on the one hand and the Germanic races on the other. Yet, in
point of fact, it is probably only in relation to their speech that any
such close affinity exists. If the theory of the “Mediterranean race”
with its central African origin be true, then the Greeks considered
ethnologically were much more closely associated with the so-called
Hamitic Egyptians and the so-called Semitic Hebrews, Babylonians,
Assyrians and Phœnicians, than they were with the other so-called Aryan
races.
All discussion of this exact point is still somewhat problematical,
but it is quite clear to the most casual physical inspection that the
Greek is of a physical type much more closely akin to the dark-skinned
and dark-eyed Mediterranean races than to the fair-skinned, blue-eyed,
Indo-Germanic tribes. Yet the language of the Greeks is unequivocally of
the Indo-Germanic family. Quite possibly, the explanation of this anomaly
may be found in the theory of a prehistoric invasion of Greece by a
Germanic race from the north, which mingled with the Mediterranean race
already in possession of the soil, and gave to it the elements of the
Indo-Germanic language, yet failed to stamp the traits of its physical
personality upon the original occupants of the little peninsula. Whoever
will, for a moment, consider the known history of the English people
as an ethnic race contrasted with the history of the language which
they speak, will at once see how very misleading may be any inferences
as to racial status based solely upon the English language, were not
such checked by other historical sources of information. This is but
one case of many that might be given illustrating how philologists
have slowly awakened to the fact that inferences based solely upon
philological evidence must not be made too confidently in their
application to questions of ethnology pure and simple. And so with the
case of the Greeks, the fact of their Aryan speech must not blind us to
the probability that, as a race, the Hellenes were not closely akin in
recent times to the other races speaking Indo-Germanic languages. That
the Greeks came to their favoured land from some unknown region and that
they found a population there before them which gradually disappeared,
presumably by intermingling with the invaders, we have already viewed as
a current tradition.
But this is only one item of the evidence which makes it clear that
when one uses the word “Greek” he is speaking of a mixed race with no
certain proof of common lineage and often with no stronger bond than that
supplied by a common language. In one sense, then, whoever spoke the
Greek language as his mother tongue was a Greek, whether the place of his
nativity were the little peninsula of Greece proper, or an Ægean island,
or the coast of Asia Minor, or the island of Sicily, or southern Italy,
or Macedonia.
Yet, from another point of view, it is quite clear that the Macedonians
were in some respects different in temperament from the typical Greeks
and, in particular, from the typical Athenians. One can hardly imagine
a Philip or an Alexander as being of Athenian birth. We have learned
to revere the Athenian for his culture, his love of the beautiful, his
artistic instincts, and exceptionally for his abstract philosophy. But
with all this one cannot escape the feeling that, in some sense, the
Athenian even of the most brilliant period was a child. He was vain,
arrogant, emotional, vacillating; in short, the reverse of all that
usually goes to make a great leader or a great political people. The
Spartan, to be sure, was more akin to the Macedonian, but rarely indeed
did any Spartan show that breadth of political view which characterised
Philip and Alexander, and at least the germs of which were latent in a
considerable company of their associates and generals. And, indeed, in
viewing the Macedonian race as a whole one is forced to the conclusion
that here was a sturdier race, of firmer fibre, if also, and perhaps
inevitably, of a lower æsthetic plane and a less elaborated culture.
In accordance then as one views the case from one point of view or
another, it might be made to appear that Philip was right in claiming
that his kingdom was a part of Greece; or that the Athenians were
right in combating that claim. But, whatever the theoretical right of
the matter, here, as always in the history of nations, Might made the
practical or political Right, and the Might lay with Philip. He was a
great soldier, and he came at a time when the power of Greece proper
had been almost utterly shattered by internal dissensions. Still, it
was his desire to effect a peaceful conquest; he sought to rule Greece,
but to rule it by diplomacy rather than by the sword, and he well-nigh
succeeded. But for the stubborn resistance of Athens, urged on by
Demosthenes, he would probably have gained all that he sought without
striking a single warlike blow against the people whom he was pleased
to regard as his fellow-Greeks; but the hostility of Athens at last
made an appeal to arms inevitable, and on the field of Chæronea Philip
proved the sword to be mightier than voice or pen, and effected the utter
subjugation of all Greece.
This accomplished, Philip was ready for that invasion of Persia which he
had long planned. But, just as his preparations were completed, he was
struck down by the hand of an assassin. His ambition was thus cut short,
his life-work left unfinished. What he would have accomplished had he
lived remains, of course, problematical. He was only in middle life when
he fell, and he had already demonstrated that his powers were of the
first order, and it is not improbable, had he been permitted to undertake
the Asiatic invasion, which he planned, that he would have carried it out
successfully. But all comment on such a question as this is, of course,
idle. As the case stands, Philip’s glory has been almost eclipsed by
that of his more brilliant son, and the history of the rise of Macedon
seems important to after ages, not so much because it is the history of
the overthrow of the Grecian independence, as because it is the history
of the preparation for Alexander. The narrative of this preparation we
must now view in some detail before passing on to the events of that
extraordinary period which has been stamped in history for all time as
the Age of Alexander the Great.[a]
EARLY HISTORY OF MACEDONIA
Æschylus attributes to King Pelasgus of Argos the statement that the
dwellings of his people, named Pelasgians after him, extended to the
clear waters of the Strymon, enclosing in their sweep the highlands
of Dodona, the district about Pindus, and the wide region of Pæonia.
According to the old soldier of Marathon, the inhabitants of the lands
watered by the Haliacmon and the Axius were of the same race as those
ancient populations which occupied the regions extending from Olympus
to the Tænarum, and to the west of Pindus. This high mountain that
separates Thessaly from Epirus and the highlands of Dodona forms in its
northwestern slope, as far as the Schar-Dagh of ancient Scardus, the wall
that divides Macedonia and Illyria, then turns eastward to the source of
the Strymon and continues at the left of the river southeastward under
the name of Orbelus, till it reaches the coast, thus forming a natural
boundary between Macedonia and Pæonia, and keeping off the Thracian
populations in the east and north. Within this enclosed territory,
crossed by the Haliacmon, the Axius with its tributaries, and the
Strymon, are a second and third mountain chain which, concentric like
that of Pindus-Scardus-Orbelus, enclose the inner coast lands, Pella and
Thessalonica. Hemmed in this double circle of valleys, through which
break three streams, those of Haliacmon and Axius making their way side
by side to the sea, the inhabitants of this district are set apart by
nature as forming a sort of hermit race with the lowlands of the coast as
their common territorial centre.
According to Herodotus the people, called Dorians at a later period,
were crowded out of Thessaly and established themselves near Pindus in
the Haliacmon valley, being known there under the name of Macedonians.
According to other accounts Argæus, from whom the Macedonians are
supposed to descend, came from Argos in Orestis and settled in the region
about the source of the Haliacmon, which explains the origin of the name,
Argead, given to the house of the king. There are other traditions,
widely received at that time, which assert that three brothers,
Heraclidæ of the princely Argive race that sprang from Temenus, travelled
north to Illyria, then penetrated into Macedonia and settled at Edessa,
close to the mighty falls which mark the entrance of the waters into the
fruitful coast lands. In Edessa, also called Ægæ, Perdiccas, youngest of
the three brothers, founded the kingdom that was to include in its steady
growth and unite in the name of Macedonia the neighbouring districts of
Emathia, Mygdonia, Bottia, Pieria, and Amphaxitis.
They belonged to the same Pelasgic race that once peopled all the
Hellenic land; but were looked upon by the Hellenes, to whose degree of
cultivation they by no means attained, as nothing more than barbarians
or semi-barbarians. The religion of the Macedonians and their customs,
attest this common origin; and although on the frontiers there was
some intermingling with Thracians and Illyrians, the Macedonian speech
resembled strongly the older Hellenic dialects.
[Illustration: MEDALLION OF PHILIP II]
Up to a very late day the hetæri were retained in the Macedonian system
of warfare. Entering the land, as they indubitably did, with the founding
of the kingdom, the Macedonian Heraclidæ met the same fate as their
forerunners in the Peloponnesus, who, immigrants in a foreign land, were
under the necessity of establishing right and might for themselves by
the complete overthrow of the native power; with the only difference
that here, more than in other Doric lands, the mingling of old and new
traits formed a whole, which, retaining the vigour as well as the rough
moroseness of the forefathers, presented a picture of heroic times in
its least poetic aspect. Certain of the customs were like those of the
ancient Franks; the warrior who had never slain a foe must wear the
halter about his neck; the hunter who had never brought down a wild boar
on the run must sit at the banquet, not recline. At the burning of a dead
body the daughter of the deceased was the one designated to extinguish
the flames of the pyre after the corpse was consumed; it is also related
that the trophies won by Perdiccas in his first victory over the native
tribes were torn, in obedience to the will of the gods, by a lion as a
sign that friends had been gained, not enemies defeated; and it ever
after remained a Macedonian custom never to erect trophies on defeating
a foe, whether Hellenic or barbarian, a custom observed by both Philip
after Chæronea, and Alexander after the conquest of the Persians and
Hindus.
The throne belonged by hereditary right to the reigning race, but the
succession was not always so clearly fixed as to exclude all doubt or
dispute. The greater the power wielded by royalty, the greater were the
wisdom and ability made necessary on the part of those in whom it was
vested, and it only too frequently happened that an indolent, incapable
minor had to yield the throne in favour of his able brother or cousin.
There was still another danger. Numerous examples show that to the
younger sons of kings, also to aliens, portions of the land were yielded
over to become hereditary possessions, under suzerainty of the king,
it is true, but with such princely privileges and control that the
owners were at liberty to maintain troops of their own. Arrhidæus, the
younger brother of the first Alexander, had thus come into possession of
the principality of Elymiotis in the upper part of the country, which
descended from generation to generation of his race; and to Perdiccas’
brother Philip was given an estate on the upper Axius. The kingdom could
not gain in power so long as these princely lines were not under complete
subjection, and so long as the Pæones, the Agrianes, and the Lyncestæ
supported them by establishing independent princes on their borders.
Alexander I appears to have been the first to force the Lyncestæ,
the Pæones, the Orestæ, and the Tymphæi to recognise the Macedonian
supremacy, but the princes of those races retained their rank and all
their princely possessions.
[Sidenote: [490-480 B.C.]]
Of the constitution and administration of Macedonia too little has
been handed down to enable us to judge accurately of the extent of the
king’s power; but when we are told that King Archelaus, during the last
decade of the Peloponnesian War, brought into use an entire new set
of regulations, that Philip II, in order to make uniform the currency
of his realm, instituted throughout an improved system of coinage and
also brought about a complete reform in military affairs, we cannot but
conclude that to the kingdom belonged a power both great and widespread.
Certainly habit and custom had a great deal to do with establishing right
and made up for the deficiencies of the constitution. It can be said of
the Macedonian rule that it as little resembled that of Asiatic despotism
as its people were far removed from the bondage of slavery. “Macedonians
are free men,” says an ancient writer. Not penestæ like the mass of
the populations of Thessaly, not helots like the Spartans, they were a
peasant race, holding independent and hereditary property and possessing
a common system of laws and local courts, but all bound to give military
service when called upon by the king of the land. Even at a later
period the military forces were still held to be a union of the general
population, with a place in the public assemblies, councils, and courts
of law.
In this army a numerous aristocracy came prominently to the front under
the name of _hetæri_, or “companions of war,” as they are called in the
songs of Homer. The members of this class can scarcely be designated as
nobles, since the distinguishing marks of their condition were simply
large possessions, noble origin, and a close connection with the person
of the king, who always rewarded their faithful service with presents and
honours. Neither did the families of those princely lines that formerly
held independent possessions in the upper country and retained them
even after coming under the suzerainty of the more powerful Macedonian
kingdom hold aloof, but with their followers submitted themselves to the
conditions that prevailed in the kingdom. Large cities, in the Hellenic
sense of the word, were not to be found in these lands peopled by
aristocrats and peasants; the settlements of the coast were independent
Hellenic colonies, in striking contrast to the settlements of the
interior.
About the time of the Persian War, under the reign of the first
Alexander, there began to appear unmistakable signs of an understanding
between Macedonia and Greece. Already Alexander’s father had given refuge
to Hippias, son of Pisistratus, after his flight from Athens, and had
bestowed upon him lands in the Macedonian domain. Alexander himself,
being obliged to follow the Persian army into Hellas, had exerted every
means in his power--notably at the battle of Platæa--to assist the
Greeks; and by reason of his descent from the Teminedians of Argos,
which procured him admission to the Olympian games, had been declared a
Hellene.
Like him, Alexander’s immediate successors applied themselves with
varying energy and ability to bringing their country into the closest
possible touch with the trade, the political life, and the culture of
the Greeks. The proximity of the rich commercial colonies of Chalcidice,
that brought them into close and frequent relations with the main powers
of Hellas, who, continually at war with each other, sought or feared the
Macedonian influence; the almost constant, internal strife with which
Hellas herself was torn and which drove many distinguished men from home
to seek peace and honour at the wealthy court of Pella--were causes which
acted powerfully to promote Macedonia’s advance.
[Sidenote: [479-390 B.C.]]
Particularly rich in progress and events was the reign of Archelaus.
Though the rest of Hellas was torn and distracted by the Peloponnesian
War, under his able guidance Macedonia made constant strides forward.
He built fortresses, which the land had previously lacked, laid out
streets, and developed the organisation of the army, “accomplishing,”
says Thucydides, “more for the good of Macedonia than all the eight kings
that had preceded him.” He founded festival games patterned after those
of Hellas at Dion, not far from the grave of Orpheus, at which homage
was paid to Olympian Zeus and the Muses. His court, the rallying-point
of poets and artists and the common centre for all the Macedonian
aristocracy, was a model for the growth of the entire race, and Archelaus
himself passed in the eyes of his contemporaries for the richest and most
fortunate of men.
Upon the reign of Archelaus followed a period of intensified internal
strife, brought about probably by a reaction against the innovations
introduced by the growing royal power and directed against the new
customs and culture instituted by the court. These modern tendencies
found, as was natural, their chief supporters among the princely families
and a portion of the hetæri, and were furthered by the politics of the
leading Hellenic states, whereas the mass of the people, it appears, were
quite indifferent to the advantages they offered.
Even in King Archelaus’ time there had been an uprising led by the
Lyncestian prince Arrhibæus, in concert with the Elymean Sirrhas, either
to avenge the removal of the rightful heir to the throne, or to support
the claim of Amyntas, the son of Arrhidæus who was grandson to the
Amyntas whom Perdiccas caused to disappear. Archelaus had obtained peace
by giving his elder daughter in marriage to Sirrhas, and his younger
to Amyntas. He was killed, according to tradition, while on a hunting
expedition. His son Orestes, who was a minor, succeeded him under the
regency of Æropus, but the regent murdered Orestes, and himself became
king. Æropus was undoubtedly the son of that Arrhibæus who belonged to
the Bacchiadæ line of Lyncestians settled on the borders of Illyria that
had so frequently aided his forefathers in their uprisings against the
Macedonian kings. The conduct of Æropus and of his sons and grandsons
during the next sixty years shows them to have persistently opposed the
new monarchical tendencies of the royal house, and to have steadily
upheld the laxer system of former times. The constant succession of
revolts and the frequent changes of sovereigns that followed are proof of
the struggles that were constantly being waged between the members of the
royal line and the particularist party.
Æropus was well able to uphold the dignity of his rank, but at his death
in 392 Amyntas took possession of the throne; he was murdered by Derdas
in 391 and Æropus’ son, Pausanias, became king. He was deposed in his
turn by that Amyntas, son of Arrhidæus (390-369 B.C.), in whose person
the oldest line of the royal house came again into its rights.
[Sidenote: [390-360 B.C.]]
The years of his reign were marked by internal disorders that made
Macedonia ready to fall an easy prey to any attack. Summoned possibly by
the Lyncestians, the Illyrians broke into the land and devastated it,
defeated the army of the king, and forced the king himself to take flight
beyond the borders. Argæus had been on the throne two years, whether he
was Pausanias’ brother or a Lyncestian remains undecided. But aided by
Thessaly Amyntas returned, and regained the kingdom, which he found in
wretched plight, all the cities and coast lands being in the power of the
Olynthians, while even Pella had shut its doors against the king.
There followed as a result of the Peace of Antalcidas, the expedition
of the Spartans against Olynthus, which was joined by Amyntas, also by
Derdas, prince of Elimea, with four hundred horsemen. But success was
not so easy as had been anticipated, and Derdas was taken prisoner.
When Olynthus was finally subdued (380 B.C.), Thebes rose in revolt,
and Sparta was defeated at Naxos and at Leuctra. Olynthus renewed the
Chalcidian alliance; and Jason of Pheræ, uniting the Thessalian powers,
compelled Amyntas III to enter his alliance. On the threshold of a
brilliant success Jason was assassinated (370 B.C.). The irresolute
Amyntas had not succeeded in upholding his sovereignty, and a little
later he died. He was succeeded by the oldest of his three sons,
Alexander II, who was soon brought by his mother, the Elymean, to an
untimely end. She had for long been carrying on a secret love intrigue
with Ptolemæus, of uncertain lineage, who was the husband of her
daughter. She persuaded him, during an absence of Alexander in Thessaly,
to take up arms against Alexander on his return, and the Thebans rushed
to join the movement, it being necessary to impair Macedonia’s power
before she could gain further victories in Thessaly. Pelopidas arranged
a compromise whereby thirty of Alexander’s pages were placed as hostages
and Ptolemæus received a part-principality, the name of which he assumed.
This compromise seemed to be effected only to hasten the downfall of the
king, who was assassinated during the course of a festival dance. His
mother bestowed her hand upon the murderer, also the throne, to which he
acceded under the name of guardian over the two younger sons, Perdiccas
and Philippus (368-365 B.C.).
Summoned from Chalcidice Pausanias, called “of the kingly line,” though
to which branch of the royal family he belonged cannot be ascertained,
commenced a vigorous campaign against the regent. His success was
immediate; Eurydice fled with her two sons to Iphicrates, who was
stationed with an Attic fleet in neighbouring waters, and he finally
put down the revolt. Still Ptolemæus’ position had not been rendered
more secure; the murder of Alexander was a breach of the agreement with
Thebes, and the friends of the murdered king applied to Pelopidas, who
advanced with a hastily gathered army. But Ptolemæus’ gold brought
disaffection in the ranks, and Pelopidas was obliged to content himself
with making a new agreement with the king. Ptolemæus placed his son
Philoxenus and fifty hetæri as hostages for his good faith; this was
perhaps the motive that brought Philippus to Thebes.
When he reached manhood Perdiccas III avenged the death of his brother
by causing the assassination of the usurper. To escape the influence
of Thebes he devoted himself to the cause of Athens, fighting bravely
against the Olynthians by the side of Timotheus. But about this time
the Illyrians, doubtless at the instigation of the Lyncestians, came
pouring over the borders. Perdiccas made a successful stand against this
invasion, but in a desperate battle he and four hundred others lost
their lives. The whole country was now devastated by the Illyrians, and
laid open to the invasion of the Pæonians on the north.
[Sidenote: [360-350 B.C.]]
This was the situation when Philippus, representing Perdiccas’ son
Amyntas, who was not yet of age, took command of the army in 359. He
had been established in Macedonia since the death of Ptolemæus, having
received a part-principality in consequence of a compromise to which
Perdiccas had been advised by Plato, and the troops he already had about
him formed a nucleus of support. The Illyrians and the Pæonians had
already entered the land, and added to them were the former pretenders
to the throne, Argæus, and Pausanias from Athens, with the support
of the Thracian princes, and three illegitimate sons of his father,
who also advanced claims to the throne. Backed by the sympathy and
support of the entire country, Philip was equal to the first great
emergencies; by the exercise of foresight, skill, and resolution, he
rescued the land from the invaders, the throne from its false claimants,
and the royal line from fresh intrigues and disasters. And when the
Athenians, who had committed the folly of turning their back on him
as thanks for his recognition of their claims on Amphipolis, became
alarmed at his successes and formed with Grabos the Illyrian, Lyppæus,
the Pæonian, and Cetriporis, the Thracian, an offensive and defensive
alliance aiming to break Macedonia’s might before it became thoroughly
established, Philip--having already taken Amphipolis and won over its
inhabitants--proceeded rapidly to the frontiers and soon brought the
barbarians, who were by no means ready for the conflict, under subjection.
About 356, the frontiers were made secure against barbarian invasion for
many years to come. Not long after this all the different intriguing
parties had vanished from the court. Of the Lyncestians, Ptolemæus
and Eurydice were dead; one of Æropus’ sons, Alexander, later became
established at court by reason of his marriage with the daughter of the
faithful Antipater; the remaining two sons, Heromenes and Arrhibæus, were
received into favour by others high in station, and Arrhibæus’ two sons,
Neoptolemus and Amyntas, were brought up at court. The two pretenders,
Argæus and Pausanias, disappear about this time from historical accounts.
The rightful heir to the throne, Perdiccas’ son Amyntas, in whose name
Philip had at first carried on the sovereignty, was secured to Philip’s
cause by marriage to his daughter, Cynane.
PHILIP THE ORGANISER
[Sidenote: [350-324 B.C.]]
Thus Macedonia, under the rule of a prince who had dexterously and
systematically developed and employed her resources, had risen to the
height where at last she might entertain the thought of issuing forth,
and, at the head of united Greece, entering the lists against the Persian
might. In the historical accounts that lie before us the forces that were
actually at work to produce Philip’s astonishing success seem curiously
to be lost sight of. Though the writers follow, through all its cleverly
planned movements, the hand that seized and drew into its owner’s
possession all the Greek states one after another, they leave us in the
dark as to every detail concerning the personality to which that hand
belonged, and to which it owed its strength and firmness. Gold which they
always show the hand to dispense at exactly the right moment, seems to
be about the only means of effecting his purposes that they attribute to
Philip.
On looking closely into the inner life of the state two events stand
forth that, arising from earlier causes, were made to yield their full
significance by Philip, and in reality formed the basis of his power.
“My father,” said Arrian’s Alexander to the mutinous Macedonians at
Opis in 324, “took you under his protection when he was king, and you,
destitute and clad in skins, wandered here from your mountains where you
had tended your flocks of sheep that you could with difficulty protect
against the Illyrians, the Thracians, and the Triballi; he gave you the
chlamys of the soldiers and led you down into the plain, where he trained
you to be the equal of the barbarian in the fight.” Every man capable
of bearing arms had always indeed come forward in time of war, but only
to return to his hearth or plough when the need of his services was at
an end. The dangers by which Philip was beset when he first assumed
the rule, the attacks against which he had to protect a land that was
menaced on all sides, gave rise to a measure that, already set on foot
in Archelaus’ reign, might have averted much of the subsequent internal
strife, had it been brought to full development. On the basis of the duty
owed by every man to his country in time of war, Philip brought into
existence a standing army of native forces that, constantly increasing in
size and strength, finally came to number forty thousand men.
MILITARY DISCIPLINE
Not only did Philip form this army, but he brought it up to a high
standard of discipline and efficiency. It is related that, to the great
displeasure of the lazy, he did away with the baggage-wagon of the
foot-soldiers, and allowed but one groom to each horseman; also that
he often, even in the heat of summer, organised marches of twenty-five
miles or more, carrying provisions and accoutrements for several days.
So severe was Philip’s discipline that in the war of 338 two officers of
high rank who introduced a lute-player into the camp were immediately
cashiered. In the service itself the strictest obedience was demanded
from subordinates to superiors, and the system of advancement was based
solely on the recognition of experience and merit.
[Illustration: PHILIP AND HIS SOLDIERS]
The benefits of this military constitution soon became apparent. A
feeling was aroused in the various provinces and dependencies of the
realm that they formed part of an organic whole, and that Macedonia had
risen to the dignity of a nation. Above all, in their unity and the
confidence inspired by this military system, the Macedonian races had
the consciousness of possessing great efficiency in war, and an ethical
strength resulting from a firm social organisation at the head of which
was the king himself. The peasant population of this kingdom provided
the king with hardy, tractable material from which to form his soldiers,
and the nobility furnished in the hetæri higher military officials that
were distinguished for zeal and a sense of the dignity of their calling.
It was natural that an army of this kind should prove vastly superior to
the bodies of mercenaries, or even the citizen troops employed by the
Hellenic states; and that a people of this physical freshness and vigour
should possess a decided advantage over Greek populations whose powers
had deteriorated through too close a study of democracy, or from the evil
effects of city life. Favoured by fortune in this respect, Macedonia
had been enabled to retain her earlier qualities until such time as
they should be needed for some great task; and in the conflicts between
the king and the aristocracy she had, contrary to the example given by
Hellas centuries before, let the victory fall to the king. Indeed,
this sovereignty over a free and powerful peasant race, this military
monarchy, guided the people in the direction, and made them assume the
form and power, marked out by the democrats in Hellas, who had not,
however, been able to bring their plans to realisation.
MACEDONIAN CULTURE
[Sidenote: [380-356 B.C.]]
On the other hand education, the most marked result of Hellenic
civilisation, must now be made a part of the life of the Macedonian
people, thus completing the work already begun by former rulers. In this
endeavour the example offered by the court was of utmost importance, the
nobility naturally forming the class of highest culture in the land. The
demarcation thus made had no parallel elsewhere, inasmuch as the Spartans
were all uncultured, and yet had supremacy over the inferior classes
of their nation; the free Athenians held themselves all to be without
exception of the highest culture; while other states, having given up
the ruling class or the introduction of a democracy, had, by emphasising
the difference between rich and poor, reduced still lower the general
intellectual standard.
In the time of Epaminondas, Philip had lived in Thebes, where a pupil
of Plato, Euphræus of Oreus, had exercised a potent influence over his
future life. Isocrates calls Philip himself a friend of literature and
education, and this esteem is proved by his appointment of Aristotle to
the post of tutor to his son. He endeavoured by instructive lectures,
instituted especially for the pages and young men about his court, to
strengthen their attachment to his person, and to prepare them for the
duties devolving upon nobles in their high position. The members of the
aristocracy, first as pages, then as hetæri, or bodyguard of the king,
and finally as commanders of the different divisions of the army, or
as ambassadors to the Hellenic states, had frequent enough occasion to
distinguish themselves and receive the reward due to faithful service;
but a lack of that polish admired by the king and possessed by him in a
high degree was everywhere noticeable. His bitterest adversary must admit
that Athens herself could scarcely show his equal in social qualities;
and whatever might be the tendency to perpetuate at his court the old
Macedonian habits of brawling and drunkenness, the court festivals,
receptions to foreign ambassadors, and celebration of national games,
were all characterised by that splendour and magnificence dear to the
Hellenic taste. The extent of the royal domains, the revenues from
land taxes and shipping duties, the mines of Pangea, which yielded one
thousand talents annually, and above all the order and economy introduced
by Philip into the management of public affairs, elevated his kingdom
to a position never before attained by any Hellenic state, save perhaps
Athens in the time of Pericles.
Even the Attic envoys were impressed by the character of the nobility
gathered at the court of Pella, and by the opulence and military
splendour that prevailed. Most of the noble families, such as the
Bacchiadæ of Lyncestis, or the house of Polysperchon, or of Orontes, to
whom the district of Orestis seems to have belonged, were of princely
origin. To Perdiccas, the oldest son of Orontes, was given the command of
the Orestian phalanx, which when he became hipparch passed over to his
brother Alcetas. The most important of these princely houses was that
of Elimea, which was founded by Derdas in the time of the Peloponnesian
War. In the year 380, a second Derdas came into possession of the land
and joined Amyntas of Macedonia and the Spartans in their attack on
Olynthus; later he is mentioned as having been taken captive by the
Olynthians. Philip’s motive for taking Derdas’ sister, Phila, to wife
was either to bind Derdas’ interests faster to his own or to arrange
some dispute that had arisen between them. The brothers of Derdas,
Machatas and Harpalus, were given high offices at court. Yet the breach
between Philip and this family was never completely healed, being kept
open doubtless by the king, for the purpose of keeping the different
members at a distance and in uncertainty as to his favour. Scarcely
could Machatas be sure of a just decision in the court presided over by
the king, and Philip took advantage of a fault committed by a single
member of Derdas’ family to turn it to the public confusion of the
rest, repulsing with considerable sharpness all Harpalus’ pleas in his
kinsman’s favour.
Among the noble families gathered about the court of Pella, two from
their prominence deserve especial mention; these were the houses of
Iollas and Philotas. Philotas’ son was that wise and faithful general,
Parmenion, to whose command Philip repeatedly entrusted the most
difficult expeditions. To him Philip owed his victory over the Dardanians
in 356, and later his possession of Eubœa. Parmenion’s brothers, Asander
and Agathon, as also his sons, Philotas, Nicanor, and Hector, carried on
the glory of his name, and his daughters contracted marriages with the
highest families of the land; one with Cœnus, the leader of the Phalanx,
and the other with Attalus, the uncle of a later wife of the king. That
a no less honourable and influential post was assigned to Iollas’ son,
Antipater, or as he was called by the Macedonians, Antipas, is attested
by the king’s words, “I have slept in peace--Antipas was on guard.” The
tried fidelity of this statesman, his clear, cool judgment in military
as well as political affairs, seemed to single him out as particularly
qualified for the high position of viceregent he was soon to fill. He
gave his daughter in marriage to the son of a noble Lyncestian family,
as being the surest means of gaining their support; his sons, Cassander,
Archias, and Iollas, did not attain prominence till later.
Similar to the development of the court was that of the Macedonian nation
under Philip’s rule; but to this statement we will add that, owing as
much to the position formerly held by the state as to the power of
Philip’s personality, the monarchical element of necessity predominated
in the political life of the country. We must first consider all the
facts in their relation to each other before we can fully understand
Philip’s character and methods of procedure. At the centre of a mass of
contradictions and disparities of the most unusual nature, a Greek in his
relations to his own people, a Macedonian to the Greeks, he exceeded the
latter in Hellenic craft and perfidy, and the former in directness and
vigour, while he was superior to both in grasp of purpose, in the logical
pursuance of his plans, in reticence, and in rapidity of execution.
He was proficient in the art of embarrassing his adversaries, always
presenting himself before them under a different aspect, and advancing
upon them from a different direction from that expected. By nature
voluptuous and pleasure-loving, he was as reckless in the indulgence of
his appetites as he was inconstant, remaining withal perfect master of
himself even when seeming most under the sway of passion; indeed, it is
to be questioned whether it was in his virtues or his faults that his
true nature was most prominently displayed. In him are united, as are the
physical features of a portrait, all the different characteristics of
his time--the shrewdness, the polish, the frivolity, coupled with great
suppleness and versatility, and the capacity for high thoughts.
OLYMPIAS, MOTHER OF ALEXANDER
[Sidenote: [359-336 B.C.]]
In striking contrast to that of Philip was the character of Olympias,
his wife. She was the daughter of Neoptolemus, the Epirot king, and
having known her in his youth at Samothrace, Philip had married her with
the consent of her uncle and guardian, Arymbas. Beautiful, reserved,
passionate, Olympias was a devotee of the secret rites of Orpheus and
Bacchus, and practised in the magical arts of Thracian women. During
nocturnal orgies, it is related, she was frequently to be seen rushing
through mountain paths with the thyrsus and winding serpents in her hand;
and in her dreams were repeated the fantastic pictures with which her
brain was filled. The night before her marriage she dreamed, according to
tradition, that she was exposed to the fury of a terrific storm, during
which a burning thunderbolt fell into her lap which, flaming up ever
higher and higher, finally disappeared in its own wild blaze.
[Illustration: BRONZE MODEL OF A GRECIAN BOAT]
When tradition further relates that among other signs given on the night
of Alexander’s birth the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, which, with
Megabyzus and his eunuchs and the hieroduli of the Hellenes formed a
striking example of true oriental heathenism, was burned to the ground;
and that simultaneously with the information of the birth of his son,
Philip received the news of a triple victory--it simply expresses in
popular form the significance of a hero’s entrance into the world, and
the great thoughts associated with such an event.
Theopompus says of Philip, “Everything considered, Europe has never
produced a man that could equal the son of Amyntas.” Yet the work that
he had set as the aim of his existence was not accomplished by the
scheming, resolute, tenacious king. He may have used this aspiration,
it having root in the very nature of Greece’s history and culture, to
bring into union the whole Greek world; but he was compelled rather
by the exigencies of the situation in which he was placed than by the
inherent power of the inspiration itself, and failed to follow it out
to full fruition. Beyond the sea was the land wherein lay greatness and
the future of Macedonia; but the glance that he strained towards this
land would often become dimmed, and the solid structure of his plans
be obscured under the airy figures of his desire. Philip’s ambition to
accomplish a great work was shared by all about him, both the aristocracy
and the common people; it was the undertone that was heard through every
phrase of Macedonian life, the alluring possibility that was continually
beckoning out of the future. The Macedonian armies fought against the
Thracians and gained victories over the Greeks; but the Orient was the
real object for which they fought and conquered.[b]
THE MACEDONIAN PHALANX
[Sidenote: [358-357 B.C.]]
The Spartans had created a system of tactics, that is, a military
ordnance, which was adopted by all the other Greeks. The Thebans added to
it the system of compact masses, the advantage of which was demonstrated
by the victory of Leuctra. Philip, formed in the school of Epaminondas,
perfected this system and made of it the Macedonian phalanx, which
Plutarch compared to a monstrous beast bristling with iron. It was a mass
of hoplites, sixteen files deep, pressed close against each other and
armed with a sort of pike seven yards long, called _sarissa_. The men in
the first five ranks held this weapon in both hands, their faces turned
to the enemy. The pikes of the first rank extended five yards beyond the
line of battle, those of the second, four, and so on to the fifth, whose
lance ends were also a yard beyond the breasts of the men next behind.
The remaining ranks pressed forward against the first and prevented their
retreating, holding their _sarissæ_ with the points upward, resting
upon the shoulders of the men in front, and this wilderness of spears
effectually warded off the darts of the enemy. Irresistible on level
ground, but without ability to make a quick change of front or a rapid
evolution, this cumbersome body of infantry was supported in the rear
and on the flanks by the light infantry of peltasts, who commenced the
conflict.
Before and at the sides ran the archers and frondeurs, an irregular
troop composed of strangers, who, when need came, closed in behind the
wings. The cavalry of the hetæria, or companions of the king, armed
with a javelin and a sabre and formed of young men belonging to the
highest nobility, constituted, with the phalanx, the principal force of
the Macedonian armies. There was further a body of light cavalry and a
corps of engineers attached to the service of the siege artillery, which
consisted of balists and catapults, recently invented machines for the
purpose of firing darts at the enemy and boulders against the ramparts of
towns. The establishment of a permanent army was Philip’s most important
military innovation. Under Philip’s weak predecessors the multiplicity of
pretenders to the throne had rendered the nobles fractious and virtually
independent; but they had under them neither penestæ as in Thessaly, nor
a helot as in Sparta.
Without openly abolishing the ancient privileges, Philip contrived to
make them inoffensive by transferring them to the army, where there was
always a military and political council. The nobles were little by little
induced to leave their estates, and were held permanently at court by
the attraction of pleasure and high appointments. It was held an honour
among them to have their sons received in the corps of the hetæria, and
these young members of the king’s bodyguard, fulfilling domestic offices
about his person, were in reality hostages delivered over into his hands.
“Never,” says Titus Livius, “were seen slaves so servile in the presence
of the master, so arrogant elsewhere.”
As regards the common people, nothing whatever was changed in their
condition. They had never, as in Greece, formed a political body, and
there was no Macedonian city. Apparently everything took place by popular
consent, but the army was the Macedonian people. Philip frequently
harangued his troops; a proceeding that offered no danger, since the
soldiers of a bellicose chief never withhold from him their approbation.
Macedonia was a nation of soldiers; hence its government, maintaining a
permanent army and engaged in perpetual wars, could be none other than a
military monarchy.
THE WAXING OF PHILIP
As soon as he had made his kingdom safe from the attacks of barbarians,
Philip wished to extend his dominion to the sea, access to which was
closed by the Grecian colonies. Some of these had ranged themselves under
the protection of Athens, others under that of Olynthus. Amphipolis was
independent; Olynthus and Athens had an equal interest in preserving
this independence and Philip himself had formally recognised it;
nevertheless it was decided not to hold to this obligation, but to seize
Amphipolis. It was necessary to prevent the Olynthians and Athenians
from uniting for its defence, and in this endeavour Philip made use
of wile, he possessing, even in a greater degree than Lysander, the
combined qualities of the fox and the lion. He persuaded the Athenians
that his only desire in taking Amphipolis was to deliver it to them in
exchange for Pydna, a Macedonian town which had placed itself under
their protection. At the same time he made sure of the neutrality of
the Olynthians, and even obtained help from them by delivering to them
Anthemus, and by promising them Potidæa, which belonged to the Athenians.
The latter, over-confident of his good faith, did not respond to the
appeal of Amphipolis for help. Philip took the town, and afterwards
treacherously entered and took Pydna, keeping them both. The Athenians
had been outdone, but they could not seek vengeance for this perfidy,
as they were engaged at the time in the war of the allies, and had need
of all their forces to carry it to an end. This encouraged Philip to
take another step; he seized Potidæa, which was occupied by an Athenian
garrison, politely sent back the garrison to Athens, and delivered
the town to the Olynthians, whom he wished to place in a position of
conflicting interests towards the Athenians (357).
Master of Amphipolis, Philip crossed the Strymon with the intention of
possessing himself of the mining region of Mount Pangea. He founded
there upon the site of the ancient Thasian city Crenides, a new town
which he called Philippi, upon the money of which was imprinted the head
of Hercules, ancestor of the Macedonian kings. The city of Philippi
was at once a military post, the entrance to Thrace, and a centre of
exploitation for the mines of Mount Pangea. These mines, far better
operated than they had been by the Thasians and Athenians, furnished
Philip with an annual revenue of a thousand talents, [£200,000 or
$1,000,000] out of which he made the handsome gold coins which bear his
name. This source of riches which enabled him to support his army and to
buy traitors in the Greek cities, contributed to his greatness at least
as much as the phalanx. He declared that no city was impregnable into
which could be driven a mule laden with gold pieces.[c]
[Illustration: GREEK MASKS]
[Illustration: FRAGMENT OF SCULPTURE, SHOWING OARSMEN IN GALLEY]