In this first of a two-part spotlight on Ancient Greece, John Paladaris examines Philip II of Macedon and the role he played in laying the foundations for the future empire of his son Alexander. In particular, he looks at how Philip worked within a combination of the trends and framework of his times as well as pursuing innovation in order to secure power for the future.

Philip II of Macedon made his state the most powerful in the Balkan peninsula within twenty years of his accession to the throne in 359, thereby radically transforming the balance of power throughout the Greek world, and taking Greek history into a new phase. During his career Philip certainly continued many of the developments that had begun before he rose to power, and in this sense he was, to a degree, dominated by some of the trends of his time, such as the increased professionalisation of the military. Philip also dominated many of the trends of his time, however, either through the strong example in leadership and imperialism set by his unique combination of warfare, diplomacy and despotism, or by way of confronting ongoing developments such as the decline of the city-states and the traditional conflict between oligarchs and democrats and using such trends to his own advantage. Though it cannot be overstated, Philip was also significant in sparking a new wave of philhellinism which, through the consequent successes of his son Alexander the Great, spread the Greek influence as far East as India.

Much of Philip's success derived from his outstanding personal qualities of strength and ambition and his incredible foresight in assessing the state of affairs in Greece: he appreciated that Macedonia's centralized, autocratic system of government could prevail over the disunited, quarrelsome and anarchic democracies and oligarchies. He set out and eliminated all rivals to the throne (359), he strengthened his frontiers, and developed a style of statesmanship incorporating military force, persuasion and intelligent leadership. By 349 he set out on a complex expansionist policy, and by 346 he had achieved the reduction of the Chalcidic peninsula and instituted the Peace of Philocrates (also in 346) which, in reality, cemented the status quo and all of Philip's acquired territory.

One of the most significant trends which Philip carried on and applied to his own circumstances was that of the changing nature of warfare in the Ancient world, which had dramatically evolved since the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars. During the period there was an ongoing decline in the role and effectiveness of citizen armies and an increased tendency towards the use of mercenaries, and Philip's use of such soldiers and establishment of professional corps represented recognition of this trend and a corresponding adaption to the change. Philip reformed his army, based largely upon what he learned from Epaminondas in Thebes during his captivity there, and he transformed his army into an unbeatable fighting machine. Diodorus Siculus emphasised Philip's innovations:

Having reformed the military formations to give greater strength and equip them with the weapons suitable for these formations, he was constantly parading and training them for combat. He devised both the close array of the phalanx and its equipment, in imitation of the close shield formation of the heroes before Troy, and he was the first to put together the Macedonian phalanx.

Indeed, the characteristics of Philip's army were that it was professional and trained, permanently mobilised, based upon a heavy infantry phalanx, and the effective deployment of cavalry. He also implemented an elite corps, the 'hypaspistae' (the guards brigade), and commissioned and used allies with special skills (for example archers and slingers). The innovations in weaponry under Philip included the introduction of lightweight armour, narrower shields, the sarissa, and siege machinery. Philip also devised a new battle strategy- the slantwise attack- that he used throughout his career, whether it be at Illyria in 359 or at Chaeronea in 338.

Diplomacy was also very important to Philip. He took advantage of the in-fighting among the Greek states and used the Sacred War over Delphi to move his forces into central Greece (344). Philip's emphasis on diplomacy revealed that in his concept of the Macedonian state the army was only a part of the wider structure, and this new approach set a trend that would be adopted by future leaders of state. He used the army to secure the border areas and to help maintain support for the central government within Macedonia, but he used other devices as well: of his seven marriages only one was to a woman of Macedonia, the other six were from frontier states; he granted land to courtiers to ensure their loyalty (as at Amphipolis and Chalcidice); Philip further kept several of the young sons of his conquered enemies at his court, and this operated to ensure loyalty to the Macedonian kingdom. Philip also, finally, maintained close contact with his officers both on the battlefield and in training.

Philip's economic policies reflected his desire to make Macedonia self-sufficient and independent. He exploited the mines, established gold coinage, directed taxes that had formerly been paid to local kings towards Macedonia, and he collected customs duties from Pydna and Methone. Philip further arranged that indemnity payments would be collected from his defeated enemies, and in addition he expanded agriculture throughout Macedonia and into the frontier areas. The sum result of such activities and emphases was therefore that Philip achieved the internal consolidation of Macedonia by destroying long time opponents such as Illyria and Thrace; he removed foreign bases from the Macedonian coast at Pydna and Methone; and he established friendship with (and in 352 the leadership of) the Thessalian League.

Once Philip had centralised the power of the Macedonian crown, and had secured his domination of the regional separatist tendencies within Macedonia, he then turned to secure his interests in Greece from 356. Philip sought a partnership with Athens, and where Athens, Thebes and Sparta had failed to unite the Greek states, Philip was able to succeed. Philip recognised that a significant trend in the period was the decline of the Greek city-states, and he took advantage of this weaker state of affairs to secure his power in Greece, establishing a brief peace with Athens in 346. The orator Demosthenes had succeeded in uniting Athens and Thebes in the Sacred War, however Philip overcame these forces at Chaeronea in 338, and this victory marked the end of all effective Greek opposition to Macedonia. An age of absolutism followed.

In emerging victorious over Athens, Philip brought much of the traditional struggle between oligarchy and democracy to a head, as he ensured that the Athenian democracy kept its system of government rather than have an oligarchy forced upon it (as Lysander had done), fully realising that such an action would only provide for antagonism and future instability, as had been the trend in the past. Philip allowed, therefore, for many states to maintain their traditional forms of government under his powerful, united despotism.

After Chaeronea Philip then invited all of the states of the south of Greece to a congress at Corinth (338-337) to work out a combined union to defeat Persia. He announced his plans for a Panhellenic campaign against Persia to liberate the Greek cities of Asia. This goal of liberation was a 'trend' in the sense that it had been an ongoing goal of the Greek cities for an extended period of time- thus Philip made the Hellenic goal of liberating the Greeks and punishing the Persians for the conflict and destruction of one hundred and fifty years before his own. By taking the causes and concerns of the Greeks on as his own; by asserting that the causes of Macedonians were Greek causes, we can identify that Philip was therefore able to contribute towards the reversal of another trend of the period- the conception that Macedonians were not Greek, but barbarians. Had Philip not been assassinated in 336 this trend may have been furthered if his expeditions into Persia had commenced.

In this period of Greek history, the great leaders that were emerging were all military men because of the civil conflict between the Greek states and the continuing threat of Persia, and Philip's own career reflects this trend, as do his plans for his son (Alexander, at the age of 18 was given a command at the battle of Chaeronea). Philip II of Macedon stands distinct from the other leaders of his era, however, because his statesmanship was based upon the combination of military force, persuasion and diplomacy, which had been an increasing trend from the Peloponnesion War onwards, though Philip was the first complete and successful embodiment of such characteristics, where others like Epaminondas and Pelopidas of Thebes had failed. Philip was certainly influenced by developments in the military and changing styles of leadership during his time, but there is little doubt that his own innovations, reforms and activities until 336 set new trends and allowed Philip to dominate his times. As Plutarch stated, "The vast meaning of Alexander in the history of civilisation is an index to the greatness of his father." Indeed, the evidence that Philip mastered the changes of his period lies in the inheritance which he passed on to his son Alexander: the strong kingdom of Macedonia, hegemony over the Greek states, the Macedonian military machine, and the plan to invade Persia all remained during Alexander's subsequent reign as his inheritance.