Once again, as so often with Alexander, this important organisation has its origins with his father, Philip II. It was Philip’s reforms to the logistics situation that provided his son with the most efficient supply system of its time.
Designed for short-term warfare
Logistics planning for Greek armies of the Classical Period had been suited to support slow movement and short-term warfare. When fighting fellow city-states, the armies usually followed certain conventions.
They would leave their home city and travel to an agreed battleground suitable for phalanx warfare. They would then engage their enemy in one determining battle, before returning home. The armies were not intended to stay out in the field for long durations at a time.
Thousands of non-combatants – including attendants, women and slaves – therefore travelled with the Greek armies, sometimes even outnumbering the soldiers. Not only did they dramatically reduce the speed and mobility of these armies, but every follower meant an extra mouth to feed.
Greek armies used oxcarts and wagons in their logistics system and this inevitably impeded an army’s speed and mobility further. Not only was the throat and girth harness, used by the Ancient Greeks for horses and mules pulling these wagons, severely damaging for the animals, but carts could easily be hindered in rough terrain. Truly they were more of a nuisance than an aid.
The logistics system of the Greek armies was therefore one designed for short distances and slow movement. It proved incapable for anything else.
Philip brings in reforms
Philip soon realised things needed to change. Among his reforms, he therefore made sweeping alterations to the Macedonian logistics system. He aimed to create a system that prioritised his army’s sustainability, mobility and speed in the field.
Fortunately for him, Philip had a suitable precedent in the Greek commander Xenophon. During his intrepid march of the 10,000 out of Asia some 50 years before, Xenophon had decided to burn his wagons to lighten the load of his army. This greatly increased the speed and mobility of his force and was no doubt critical to the success of his march to the sea.
Likely influenced by Xenophon’s success, Philip forbade the use of ox-carts and wagons in his army. Instead, he used horses as the prominent pack animal – the first time a western commander had done this. It soon provided dividends as it gave his army more mobility.
‘Philip’s Mules’
To reduce his army’s reliance on animals, Philip also increased the amount of supplies carried by his men on the march. This included arms and armour – possibly even the sarissa, which could be detached into two sections to ease its portability.
Each soldier would also have to carry rations, utensils, blankets, road-building tools, medical supplies, a thirty-day supply of flour and any personal possessions in a backpack. All-together this would have weighed around eighty pounds.
Later, with the Marian Reforms at the beginning of the first century BC, the Romans would adopt a similar system in their own army, gaining the nickname Marius’ mules. It is even possible Philip’s reforms were the inspiration for Marius.
Military supply transport of arms and wine for the Norman Invasion of England in 1066, from the Bayeux Tapestry
Image Credit: Public Domain
Reducing non-combatants
Philip’s changes did not stop there. To further lighten his baggage train, the Macedonian king drastically reduced the number of non-combatants accompanying the army. Women were forbidden while the number of servants was drastically reduced.
Each cavalryman would have one servant, while for the infantry there would be one servant for every ten Macedonians. These attendants would carry hand mills that were used for grinding grain as well as guy ropes for both bridge building and rock climbing and their own bedding and rations.
All this significantly increased the efficiency of Philip’s Macedonian army. Not only was his army now able to move quicker and inflict ‘lightening strikes’ on opposing forces, but he could sustain his army in the field for significantly longer periods of time than his mainland Greek counterparts.
Alexander’s inheritance
And so, just as with his infantry, cavalry and siege craft, Alexander inherited a logistics system that his father had radically transformed into the most efficient of its time. He was not slow to take advantage of this.
Having heard news of a Theban revolt, for instance, Alexander marched his army south from Lake Lynchitis to Boeotia – some 500 miles – in thirteen days. The rapid arrival of Alexander caught the rebels completely off-guard – all thanks to Philip’s reforms to the logistics system.
]]>However, into this crisis a new king stepped, whose reforms would completely transform Macedonian fortunes. He would turn Macedon from a kingdom on the brink of ruin into the dominant power in mainland Greece within the space of 20 years. This was King Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great.
At the heart of Macedon’s rise under Philip were a series of extraordinary military reforms – covering logistics, siege machinery, cavalry and infantry. This article will explore the massive reforms he made to the infantry, introducing a new style of warfare that went on to conquer large swathes of the known world: the Macedonian phalanx.
Philip II learned from other Greeks
Philip did not spend much of his youth in his native Macedonia. Instead, thanks to the fragility of the kingdom, the young prince served as a hostage of foreign powers: first at the court of the Illyrians and then at Thebes. It was while residing at the latter that Philip’s ideas of radical military reform likely took root.
In 371 BC, the balance of power between the mainland Greek cities was shaken to its core. At Leuctra, the Thebans won a stunning victory against the Spartans, replacing them as the dominant power on the Greek mainland. The reason behind this unprecedented victory was the military innovation and expert leadership of two leading citizens, Epaminondas and Pelopidas.
Most notable among the Theban innovations were those that radically improved the Theban infantry. Not only had Epaminondas’ decided to concentrate his Theban hoplite phalanx in deeper ranks on the left of his line, which resulted in the shattering of opposing Spartans. He also created an elite, professional infantry body, the Sacred Band. They provided Thebes with a force that proved equal to the famed Spartan warriors of antiquity.
In Thebes at the time of Leuctra, Philip appreciated that the secret of Thebes’ military supremacy was its professionalism. At the same time, the reforms of another leading Greek general also appear to have greatly impressed the young Macedonian. His name was Iphicrates.
Iphicrates
A renowned Athenian general, Iphicrates had recently experimented with reforming the weaponry of some of the Athenian infantry. He had replaced the heavier bronze hoplite armour with lighter linen cuirasses and the large, circular hoplon shield with a lighter, smaller equivalent, the pelta. He had also equipped these men with much longer spears. The increased length of this new spear meant that it had to be held with both hands, while the reduced body armour provided the soldiers with increased mobility.
These reforms did not stand the test of time with the Athenian infantry. Yet scholars assume that this style of fighting continued for those hoplites that were fighting on ships at sea – the increased spear-length and improved flexibility undoubtedly proving very useful when attacking adjacent enemy vessels. Reform and military innovation was therefore a common theme among the mainland Greeks in the early 4th century BC.
‘The Acropolis from the West, with the Propylaea and the Temple of Athena Nike, Athens’, Thomas Hartley Cromek, 1834.
Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Returning home
In 365 BC, Philip returned to Macedonia. The death of Philip’s elder brother Perdiccas, in a battle against the Illyrians in 359 BC, brought Philip an abrupt ascension to the Macedonian throne. The kingdom he inherited had never been weaker. With potential enemies to his north, east and west, Philip’s tenure as king was by no means guaranteed. Another invasion looked imminent.
Having secured his throne from rival claimants, he set about reforming the Macedonian army, putting into practice what he had learnt from Epaminondas, Pelopidas and Iphicrates while a hostage.
How did Philip the II reorganize his army?
Arguably the factor Philip most revolutionised was the infantry. Although limited evidence survives, it is likely that in 359 BC Philip’s foot soldiers were of a very poor quality. Scholars presume they had mostly been light infantry, recruited from a peasant class deep in poverty, usually ill-equipped and lacking training. Consequently, they had proven no match for the superior infantry of their neighbours, including the Illyrians. Though it appears the Macedonians also maintained an elite unit, armed in the Greek hoplite fashion, these hoplites were few in number and no match for their Illyrian counterparts.
Philip saw the need for change. He quickly recruited 4,000 Macedonian levies and equipped them for a radical new style of fighting. For their armour, Philip equipped his Macedonians with a blend of the heavy hoplite and the lighter Greek peltast panoply. Each soldier was fitted with a bronze helmet, greaves, tall boots and a cloth tunic. Unlike the southern hoplites, Philip did not arm his new recruits with heavy breastplates, but much lighter body armour. This was a compromise made up for by a new weapon that Philip developed: the sarissa.
The sarissa
Their deadly new armament was a 4-6-metre-long pike. Its shaft was made from cornel wood – the best available wood in the Greek world at that time. Fortunately for Philip, Macedonia was renowned for such high-quality timber. He thus acquired significant supplies to create his new weapon.
At one end of the sarissa was an iron pike tip. Its streamlined head was designed specially to penetrate armour and continue through into the enemy’s body. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the pike was a heavy metal butt. Made of either iron or bronze, this butt was designed to act as a counterweight, offering the wielder more balance when holding the sarissa three quarters of the way down the shaft. Its shape also anchored the pike into the ground when bracing for an enemy charge.
Just as with the high-quality cornel wood, bronze and iron were also readily available in Macedonia. Philip thus had easy access to the materials required for these new deadly weapons.
The Macedonian phalanx, from “Cassell’s Illustrated Universal History” (1893).
Image Credit: British Library / Public Domain
The pelta
Unlike the shorter doru spears of the hoplites, the sheer length and weight of the sarissa meant that each Macedonian soldier required both hands to carry it. Carrying a heavy shield as well was impossible. Philip therefore equipped his men with a smaller, light shield called a pelta.
The Pelta was commonly used by the Greek light infantry and by Iphicrates’ new-look Athenians earlier in the 4th century. An infantryman could sling it around his neck and strap it to his left arm. These men were also equipped with a short spear and a slashing sword, but the pike was the primary weapon.
Equipped in such a manner, Philip did not intend for these pikemen to fight on their own; the sarissa was next to useless in a one-on-one fight. Instead, Philip intended each man should fight as part of a larger, trained mass: the Macedonian phalanx.
How did Philip II change the phalanx?
Originally, the Macedonian phalanx consisted of basic units of ten men called a dekas, although this number was soon increased to 16. Multiple dekas units, or dekades, combined into larger groupings called a lochos (lochoi in the plural). They deployed the separate dekades side by side and placed the most experienced men nearer the front.
At its beginning, it appears the Macedonian phalanx was primarily trained to be formed 16-men deep and 8-men across – the men being in very close order thanks to the small size of their shields. This basic tactical unit consisted of 128 men and was commanded by an officer called a lochagos.
Alongside the lochagos, other specialised soldiers also served alongside each lochos. There was the bugler – the salpingetes – who would relay messages with his bugle during the heat of battle. There was also a signalman – called the semeiphoros – who would give visual signals during the march with his standard, as well as an army herald – a stratokerux – who would shout out orders.
There was also an aide – a hyperetes – who was to convey messages between units and do whatever the lochagos required, and finally a file closer – the ouragos – who would collect any stragglers from the phalanx.
Wall of iron
As each lochos moved in their rectangular formation on the battlefield, every man would carry their sarissa upright. Only just before they were to engage their enemy would the first five ranks lower their deadly pikes horizontally, creating a deadly wall of iron. The lines just behind would lower their own pikes at a 45-degree angle to protect their comrades from enemy projectiles. The rows further back would keep their pikes upright.
Thanks to the great length of the pike, four deadly sarissa heads could protrude ahead of the first infantryman in the phalanx. Not only could the sheer offensive power of multiple advancing sarissae steamroll any opponent, but any opposing infantry force would struggle to get past the multiple rows of pikes to even reach the holder, becoming pinned on a line of deadly iron tips.
From the elite hoplite infantry of both the Illyrians and the Greeks to the hardened warriors of Thrace and Paeonia, all would struggle to combat Philip’s sarissa-wielding phalanx with their shorter spears.
The Battle of Chaeronea August 338 BC.
Image Credit: Public Domain
Flaws of the Macedonian phalanx
Taken from the front, Philip’s new Macedonian phalanx was virtually unstoppable. Its cohesiveness and the weight of its offensive armament was unmatched in the contemporary world. Yet this new formation was not without its flaws.
The key to the phalanx’ deadliness was its cohesiveness. If the formation was shattered – whether it be from fighting on uneven ground or from being attacked on either the side or rear – then the poor individual fighting skill of these soldiers would soon be apparent. The phalanx was deadly just for so long as it maintained its order.
And so, in 359 BC, Philip equipped and trained his 4,000 new Macedonian recruits in this new, revolutionised system of warfare. Continuously he would train them in a variety of manoeuvres to make sure they were ready for war.
He ensured the phalanx formation had flexibility for example, training his men to either double or halve the usual 16-man depth of the phalanx when necessary. Furthermore, Philip also made his infantry march and run long distances with full equipment so that they were always fit and ready for battle when on campaign.
The Pezhetairoi
As we have mentioned, the majority of Philip’s reformed infantrymen originated from the Macedonian levy of the region – farmers, craftsmen and men from other citizen professions. But Philip also had an elite corps: the pezhetairoi or ‘foot companions’.
These men were a force selected for their size and strength from the infantry, and served as the king’s distinguished guard. The pezhetairoi were also Philip’s only professional soldiers, far out-classing the skill of the rest of his infantry. Truly they were the Macedonian equivalent of the famed Theban Sacred Band.
Philip stationed his elite pezhetairoi on the furthest right wing of the infantry line – the most prestigious place among the footmen in his army. It was the pezhetairoi for example, that probably accompanied Philip on his right during his first major battle in 357 BC against the Illyrians.
Leading his best soldiers forwards ahead of the rest of his army, we hear that Philip and his elite phalanx shattered the opposing Illyrians, who proved no match for them. For the first time in years, the Macedonian infantry outclassed its neighbours.
Elite forces of ancient Greece
Scholars still debate the equipment of Philip’s pezhetairoi. Some argue these men were armed as hoplites, wielding shorter spears, a larger, aspis, shield and heavy, bronze body armour, trained to add versatility to Philip’s sarissa-wielding infantry line.
Yet surviving evidence for this assumption is sparse. Many instead argue that Philip equipped his pezhetairoi with the same equipment as the rest of his reformed infantry. It was their skill and expertise with not just the sarissa, but also the spear and sword, that singled these soldiers from the rest, not their equipment.
Later, upon the accession of Philip’s son, Alexander, this elite infantry force would undergo a significant change. Alexander extended the name pezhetairoi to include the entirety of his phalanx. He thus gave his elite infantry a new name, which would endure through the Hellenistic period: the hypaspists.
Reforming the Macedonian infantry was just part of Philip’s great plan. He also reformed the cavalry and siege equipment. But Philip’s infantry reforms were the first great step in transforming his kingdom from the brink of destruction towards ascendance in the Central Mediterranean.
]]>Indeed, even when its supremacy was eventually toppled by the Roman legion, the Macedonian phalanx never lost its stellar reputation and remains to this day one of the most iconic military formations of all time.
The origins of the formation
In 359 BC, King Philip II ascended the Macedonian throne and inherited an infantry class that was deep in poverty. Having been the victim of numerous invasions by various tribes, the Macedonian footmen were ill-equipped and lacking in training – no more than a rabble.
Recognising that this needed to change, and having already been inspired by the reforms of the Theban general Epaminondas and the Athenian general Iphicrates, Philip initiated reform of his infantry.
Taking advantage of Macedonia’s natural resources – mainly the region’s abundance of high-quality timber called “cornel wood” and bronze and iron reserves – Philip equipped his army’s footmen with a four to six-metre-long pike called a sarissa. Carried in both hands and held four-fifths of the way down the shaft, the sarissa’s extreme length made up for the infantrymen’s light body armour.
In addition, each soldier carried a small pelta shield strapped on his left arm.
A fresco depicting Macedonian soldiers with light armour, spears and shields.
What did the Macedonian phalanx look like and how did it work?
Philip’s men were then trained to fight in large, densely packed formations called phalanxes.
Usually measuring eight rows across and 16 ranks deep, the Macedonian phalanx was virtually unstoppable from the front. The extreme length of the sarissa meant that up to five layers of pikes protruded ahead of the front man – allowing the phalanx to steamroll any opponent.
So long as its rear and flank were protected, the formation was extremely powerful both as a defensive and an offensive weapon.
An illustration of the Macedonian phalanx. This one is formed of 256 men.
Yet the key to the Macedonian phalanx’s power was actually the professionalism of the Macedonian soldiers. Philip ensured that his newly reformed footmen were drilled relentlessly to quickly and effectively alter the direction and depth of the phalanx – even in the heat of battle.
They also regularly endured arduous long-distance marches while carrying heavy packs containing their personal belongings.
Thanks to this regular training, Philip’s introduction of the Macedonian phalanx transformed his infantry from an ill-equipped rabble into the most powerful and well-disciplined force of the age. This was something his enemies soon found out for themselves.
From the hardened Illyrians in the west, to the Greek city states to the south, none could match Philip’s disciplined sarissa-wielding infantry. So long as its flanks and rear were protected, the Macedonian phalanx proved unstoppable.
The Macedonian Empire of King Philip II, prior to his victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC. A keystone to Philip’s success was his creation and use of the Macedonian phalanx.
By the time that Philip was unexpectedly assassinated in 336 BC, the Macedonian phalanx men had already established themselves as the dominant military force on the Greek mainland. Philip’s son and successor, Alexander, thus inherited the greatest infantry force of the time. And he was sure to use it.
The heart of Alexander’s success
For Alexander, the Macedonian phalanx would be the nucleus of his army throughout his conquests – from his first victory on Asian soil at the Granicus in 334 BC, to his final pitched battle against Porus, King of the Parauvas, at the Hydaspes River in India.
Indeed, so vital was the Macedonian phalanx to the perceived invincibility of Alexander’s army, that he even recruited 30,000 Asian levies and had them trained in the Macedonian manner.
This provided Alexander another phalanx formation to rival the one made up of now-grumbling Macedonian veterans; it also provided him a ready supply of pikemen, available for future conquests.
The Macedonian phalanx was thus critical to Alexander’s entire campaigning life. This was partly due to a brilliant battle tactic Alexander used that made the most of his core infantrymen: the hammer and anvil.
The hammer and anvil
This tactic, the bread and butter of many of Alexander’s greatest military successes, was made up of two main parts.
The “anvil” consisted of the Macedonian phalanx – the crucial defensive arm of Alexander’s army. The king would task his footmen with engaging the opposing infantry and then holding them in place with the numerous layers and sheer length of their sarissae.
As the phalanx held its foe in position, Alexander would lead his powerful shock Macedonian cavalry, his hetairoi (companions), against a weak part of the enemy line.
Having landed a critical blow against their opponents, Alexander and his hetairoi would then wheel round behind the enemy infantry, who were already engaged with the Macedonian phalanx, and deal a death blow from behind. They thus acted as the hammer delivering the fatal blow while the phalanx acted as the anvil, sandwiching the enemy infantry in a deadly trap between the two nuclei of Alexander’s force.
Employing tactics such as the hammer and anvil, Alexander’s Macedonian phalanx proved more than a match for any opposing force it faced.
]]>Their riders came from the Macedonian nobility and were called the Companions, or hetairoi, to emphasise their closeness to the king. However, contrary to some beliefs, it was not Philip who created the title ‘Companions’; it had been in use long before 359 BC.
During both the Peloponnesian War and the Spartan-Olynthian War in 381 BC, we hear of the Companions’ prowess in battle against larger forces of enemy cavalry. Philip thus inherited a kingdom that for decades had a rich equestrian heritage among its elite.
Yet many of these nobles had perished along with his Philip II’s brother, Perdiccas III, when fighting against the Illyrians in 359 BC. Upon his accession, it appears he did not have a large surviving force available to him.
Statue of Philip II, 4th century AD,
Image Credit: History Hit / Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier
Philip quickly solved this by promoting many of his supporters to the Macedonian nobility, thus making them Companions. Later in his reign, Philip also incorporated Thessalians and other Greeks into the nobility to increase numbers.
Equipment
The Companion’s primary weapon was a lance called the xyston. Around two metres in length, the xyston’s shaft was made from cornel wood – like the Macedonian infantry’s sarrisa. Yet unlike the sarissa the Companions wielded the xyston with one hand due to its lighter weight and smaller size.
At its end was a stout iron tip, designed to penetrate both armour and flesh. The Companions also had a short sword, either a kopis or xiphos, as a secondary weapon if the xyston shaft broke on impact.
For their armour, the Companions were equipped with a cuirass made of either bronze or leather. They were also armed with metal greaves and a gorget, both usually made of bronze. Their helmet was the famed Phrygian helmet made of iron. Later however, around the time of Alexander’s succession, it appears they replaced this helmet-style with the more suitable Boeotian style.
Scholars debate whether Philip’s Companions also had a small shield like the pelta of his Macedonian infantrymen. Whether this is the case or not, it appears they discarded it by the time of Alexander’s crossing into Asia in 334 BC.
Squadrons
Philip arranged his Companion cavalry into squadrons called ile. Each squadron consisted of around 200 men and were based on the Macedonian districts possessed by the Companions – we know for example that there was an squadron formed from Companions from the Upper-Macedonian region of Elimiotis.
Among these squadrons was an elite squadron called, the Basilike ile, the royal squadron. This squadron was the elite of the Companions squadrons and comprised 300 men. Each Companion in every squadron was attended by a groom, who would not only tend the horse but was also armed and would fight alongside the squadrons in battle.
The greatest reform Philip made to his Companions was in their training. The Companions were to be the shock-arm of his new-look army, meant to disrupt an enemy’s line and shatter their resolve with the power of their charge and the deadliness of their lances. To do this, he trained them in a special formation: the wedge.
The wedge
The wedge had been traditionally used among the Scythians and Thracians and it was Philip who adopted this formation for his Macedonian cavalry. It was triangular, with one rider at the front and the number increasing in each row further back.
The squadron commander would lead the wedge, being the most visible and easiest position from where he could guide the rest of the formation. In a solid wedge, each squadron of 200 men would be 20-men deep and 20-men wide at its base. The wedge could also be hollow which would give the formation a greater size.
Depiction of the Companion Cavalry from Marshall Monroe Kirkman’s History of Alexander the Great (1913)
Image Credit: Public Domain
Why were the Macedonian cavalry so effective?
Combined with the use of the xyston lance, the wedge formation was devastating at disrupting enemy lines and creating panic. The narrowness of its head meant that the leading horse could exploit and charge through even small gaps in an enemy line. The cavalrymen behind would follow and very quickly the opposing formation would be shattered, which the following infantry would exploit.
Philip knew that used correctly, the shock element of his new-look companions trained in the wedge formation would be devastating.
The wedge was not faultless in its design. Regardless of how much rigorous training Philip provided his companions or of how formidable the Macedonian steeds were, the wedge would only prove devastating if there was a gap in the enemy lines for the horse to charge through.
No matter how disciplined its training, a horse would never charge into a solid unbroken infantry phalanx standing its ground; instead it would shy away and refuse to run into a cohesive line of spears. Any impetus of the charge would be lost. If the wedge was to be effective, they had to first disrupt the enemy formation and create gaps. This was what his new-look infantry was for.
Fighting in unison
Armed with lines of deadly sarissae, the offensive power of the Macedonian phalanx, supported by both archers and javelin men, was perfect for shattering the cohesion of enemy formations: being also under fire from both javelins and arrows, their foe would struggle to oppose the sarissae with the shorter length of their own weapons.
The Macedonian phalanx, from “Cassell’s Illustrated Universal History” (1893).
Image Credit: British Library / Public Domain
Unable to counter, the enemy formation would soon suffer casualties and lose its cohesion; gaps would emerge in the enemy line. And it was these gaps that the companions could exploit in the wedge.
This was the tactic that scholars believe Philip used to gain his first great victory against the Illyrians in 357 BC. His son Alexander would most famously use the wedge formation to exploit the gap in Darius’ line at Gaugamela.
Philip would also develop the hammer and anvil tactic, used most effectively by his son Alexander and many other commanders since. We will talk about this tactic in more detail in a separate History Hit documentary.
For Philip’s new-look Macedonian army, he designed the Companion cavalry to fight in unison with the infantry to gain victory. Neither unit was more important; both were indispensable.
The Prodromoi
Although evidently the most integral to his military successes, the Companions were not the only Macedonian cavalry force Philip reformed. Alongside the heavy cavalry, Philip introduced a new, lighter unit called the prodromoi literally meaning ‘the runners ahead.’
The prodromoi were the lighter compliment to the Companions. Unlike the Companions, they did not have metal armour and instead wore tunics. They also had the traditional Macedonian hat called the kausia.
Bronze statuette of a rider, Greek, 3rd century BC.
Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
It appears the prodromoi served a variety of roles and their primary weapon depended on their role at a given time.
Primarily, as the name suggests, the prodromoi served as scouts. They would have been armed with javelins and acted as swift skirmishers. They would use their javelins to inflict the first casualties in a battle from distance.
Later, we also hear of the prodromoi being referred to as sarisaphoroi or ‘sarisa-bearing cavalry.’ This suggests the prodromoi could also serve as lancer cavalry, used primarily against enemy horsemen. At the Battle of Gaugamela for example, we hear of Sarisaphoroi routing the opposing Persian cavalry.
Although their name suggests otherwise, the sarisaphoroi did not carry a lance as long as the infantry sarisa – it would have been too cumbersome for the rider to carry. Instead, they were armed with longer versions of the Companions’ xyston lance, still held with one hand.
Just as with the Companions, Philip divided the prodromoi into ile squadrons and trained them in the wedge formation.
]]>From early on in his reign, Philip had a keen interest in the use of siege machinery to aid him in capturing cities – most notably at Amphipolis in 357 BC, where he used both battering rams and siege engines to breach the enemy’s walls. Seeing its effectiveness, it was probably not long after this that Philip created his own special engineering corps within his reformed army. They were tasked specially with constructing various siege engines such as siege towers, battering rams and catapults.
Although once again we do not know for certain, scholars presume the headquarters of this corps was in Pella, which likely soon became an arsenal for military machinery.
What siege weapons did the Macedonians use?
The engineering corps quickly became a critical part of Philip’s army and they soon got used to constructing and operating various siege engines. One such engine was the Oxybeles.
Oxebeles.
Image Credit: Arz, user on Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 / History Hit
The oxybeles was an improvement on the gastraphetes mechanical bow that had originated in Sicily at the start of the 4th Century BC. Its mechanical bow remained the same as the gastraphetes but it differed by being mounted onto solid frames. The crew used non-torsion winches to pull back the bow’s arms to give it more power. As a result, it could fire bolts up to 300 yards.
Although the oxybeles was not created in Macedon, it was quickly brought there by Philip to aid his siege warfare. Evidence suggests that Philip used the oxybeles during his siege of Olynthus in 348 BC and continued to use them throughout his reign.
Polyidus and siege warfare
Philip’s engineering corps would make advancements to siege warfare due mainly to one man. His name was Polyidus, a Thessalian. Polyidus was Philip’s chief engineer for much of his reign. Once again, limited evidence survives but it appears Polyidus made significant improvements to both the ram and siege tower, increasing their effectiveness and portability.
Yet Polyidus’ greatest achievement was his creation of the torsion catapult. Prior to 350 BC, catapults such as the gastraphetes and oxybeles were non-torsion and fired bolts against defenders on the wall rather than the walls themselves. Polyidus changed this. In around 340 BC, the Thessalian developed torsion springs and supporting frames for the catapults. These springs gave the catapult a much greater propulsive power than the oxybeles and were used to hurl projectiles at enemy fortifications.
These torsion catapults could also be placed on top of siege engines, from where they could fire down on defenders. They were called, katapeltai Makedonikoi or ‘Macedonian catapults’ as Philip and Polyidus were the first to develop them. Philip would use these new machines during his siege of Byzantium in 340 BC, although the siege in the end proved unsuccessful. Following Philip, his son Alexander would make the torsion catapults even more powerful.
Hellenistic artillery tower.
Image Credit: Public Domain
The best engineering unit in the world
We cannot understate Polyidus’ importance to Macedonian siege developments. Not only did his treatise on the use of machines in war become a key military text of the Hellenistic period, but he also trained a new generation of mechanical engineers.
Among his proteges was a certain Diades, who would go on to serve under Alexander and make further developments to siege warfare. Although Alexander’s sieges were more successful and awe-inspiring than Philip’s, it was the crucial developments of Philip and Polyidus that resulted in Alexander having the best engineering unit in the world on his accession.
During his reign, Philip had completely revolutionised Hellenic warfare. Infantry, cavalry and machinery – he had reformed all. The days of heavily-armed phalanxes being the dominant factor in victory were over. A new era in armies and tactics had begun. His son, Alexander, would be sure to take advantage.
]]>And so when it comes to Alexander’s sex life too, we must first talk about Philip’s. In some ways, their sex lives proved similar, particularly when it came to the practice of polygamy and the diplomatic importance Macedonian monarch marriages could serve. But in other ways, their sex lives proved very different.
In this article we’ll highlight various amorous stories associated with the promiscuous Philip.
Rise of Macedon
Although his story is often overshadowed by the heavily-mythologised one of his legendary son, King Philip II was one of antiquity’s titanic monarchs. During his 23 year reign, it was Philip that transformed Macedon into the most powerful kingdom in the Central Mediterranean.
Philip accomplished this through various actions. Militarily, he reformed the army and its logistics system, developing most famously the iconic Macedonian phalanx formation for his core heavy infantrymen. He won several wars against various enemies – Dardanians, Thessalians, Phocians, Athenians, Thracians.
Philip didn’t just gain success by the sarissa pike however. Shrewd marriage alliances with neighbouring realms also played an important role in Philip’s expanding of Macedonian territory and influence.
Map of the Macedonian Kingdom at the death of Philip II in 336 BC
Image Credit: Drawing by Marsyas, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Polygamy
Polygamy likely preceded Philip II as a diplomatic tool embraced by Macedonian monarchs, but it was Philip who took this practice to a whole new level. Over the course of his reign, he married seven times.
Most, if not all, of them had clear diplomatic undertones. Five of Philip’s wives belonged either to royalty or a prominent noble family that hailed from a nearby, non-Macedonian power. Philip had used these marriages to secure alliances with the neighbouring powers in question, sometimes in the wake of defeating them on the battlefield.
For example Audata, Philip’s first wife, was the daughter of a renowned Illyrian king called Bardylis. Philip defeated Bardylis in battle very early on in his reign in one of the first great tests of his Macedonian military reforms. In the wake of his victory, Philip married Audata to quell any future Illyrian threat and to secure his northwestern frontier.
Philip’s most famous wife was Olympias, Alexander the Great’s mother. Olympias was a princess from the Kingdom of Molossia, the most powerful ‘tribe’ ruling the region of Epirus southwest of Macedonia. Her marriage to Philip secured the latter an alliance with the Molossians,
For Philip, polygamy was a useful tool through which he was able to consolidate, to secure, his Macedonian kingdom as it expanded during the monarch’s two decades on the throne. The marriage alliances provided Philip powerful allies, but it also had negative consequences too.
Roman medallion with Olympias, fourth wife of Philip II and mother of Alexander the Great. Museum of Thessaloniki
Image Credit: Fotogeniss, CC BY-SA 3.0
Rival factions at court emerged; the question as to who would succeed Philip was no settled matter. Philip had two sons, Alexander (by Olympias) and another called Arrhidaeus (by a Thessalian wife called Philinna). He also had a cousin called Amyntas and several daughters – including the warlike ‘Macedonian Amazon’ Cynane.
It wasn’t simply a case that Philip’s eldest son would inherit the throne. The question of who would succeed Philip remained dangerously unclear throughout his reign. A recipe for bloody internal, factional fighting at the Argead court.
For transforming his kingdom into the powerful domain that Alexander ultimately inherited, Philip’s multitude of marriages proved incredibly important. But the court intrigue it predictably created, combined with the unsettled nature of Macedonian succession, meant that this ‘tool’ would also contribute to his terrible end….
Male lovers
Philip wasn’t just sexually interested in women – both wives and courtesans. He also had a number of younger, male lovers. Similar to examples of pederasty we have surviving from ancient Greek city-states such as Athens and Sparta, the practice of an older man (the erastes) taking an adolescent, youthful looking lover (the eromenos) was also present at the Macedonian royal court in the 4th century BC. Justin, admittedly quite an unreliable source, claimed that Olympias’ brother Alexander (not to be confused with her famous son Alexander ‘the Great’) became Philip’s catamite when he was residing at the Macedonian court during his teenage years.
But the most (in)famous younger lover linked with Philip’s story was a Macedonian nobleman called Pausanias. While he was serving as a page (an officer / noble in training basically) at Philip’s court, Pausanias had caught the King’s eye and became his eromenos – Philip’s ‘beloved’. But Philip’s attention soon turned to another young man, also confusingly called Pausanias. This shunning, however, wasn’t the end of the story.
Pederastic couples at a symposium, as depicted on a fresco in the Tomb of the Diver from the Greek colony of Paestum in Italy
Image Credit: greenworlder, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
At a drinking party, celebrating Philip’s marriage to his seventh and final wife Cleopatra in c.338 BC, Pausanias (the shunned beloved of Philip) was gang-raped – a horrific act that was instigated by a Macedonian noble called Attalus. After the party, Pausanias demanded justice for the attack, but Philip did nothing. Attalus was the uncle of his new bride Cleopatra and rather than punish the man, Philip opted to turn a blind eye to the sexual assault.
A bloody succession
Greatly angered by Philip’s failure to punish Attalus, Pausanias developed a great hatred for the Macedonian king. Ultimately, two years later in 336 BC, that anger evolved into a successful plot to murder Philip when, as the king entered the theatre at Aegae during another great marriage celebration, Pausanias murdered Philip in full public view.
Could the likes of Alexander and Olympias have been involved in the plot to murder Philip? It’s certainly possible and there is a motive. As mentioned, in the Macedonian royal court there was no settled succession plan. Alexander was Philip’s son; he had served as a leading adjutant of Philip in recent years, most famously leading the Companion Cavalry at the Battle of Chaeronea against the Thebans and Athenians in 338 BC.
But Alexander had recently fallen out of favour with his father in 336 BC; both he and his mother Olympias had recently spent time in exile away from the court. There was no guarantee that Alexander would inherit the throne ahead of any other heirs that Philip would almost certainly have produced in future years.
Both Alexander and Olympias must have felt threatened by the recent marriage of Philip to the Macedonian noblewoman Cleopatra – with the likes of Cleopatra’s powerful uncle Attalus openly planning for any male offspring his daughter bore Philip to surpass Alexander as Philip’s heir in the years ahead (in their eyes, Alexander was not fully Macedonian due to his mother’s Molossian roots. This racial thinking was a big deal in Philip’s Macedon). The wronged Pausanias’ murder of Philip put an abrupt end to any such possibility.
It was Philip’s murder that allowed the c.20 year old Alexander to swiftly assume the diadem amidst the chaos. Potential threats posed by the likes of Attalus or Alexander’s cousin Amyntas were extinguished. Both Attalus and Amyntas, alongside Cleopatra and the infant children that she had recently borne Philip, were murdered almost as soon as Alexander assumed the crown.
Thanks in no small part to Philip’s embracing of royal polygamy, Alexander and Olympias proved ruthless in the removing of any potential threats to the new regime. A horrific, internal infighting practice that would outlive Alexander and become a common terror in the Hellenistic courts of Alexander’s successors – from the Ptolemies to the Antigonids.
As for Pausanias, Philip’s jilted lover turned assassin, he was killed trying to escape the theatre where he had carried out the murder.
Philip vs Alexander
Philip was a promiscuous king. He had several wives; he had several male lovers. And he no doubt also had courtesans. Alexander’s sex life, in comparison, proved relatively ‘moderate’. At least that is the impression we get from several surviving sources that mention this – Greco-Roman historians such as Aelian, Arrian and Plutarch for instance. These historians tend to emphasise Alexander’s sexual moderation.
Mosaic of a stag hunt from Pella, which likely depicts Alexander the Great and Peritas
Image Credit: Gnosis, whose signature is found on the work, or simply an anonymous ancient Macedonian artist, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Nevertheless there are similarities between Philip and Alexander when it came to sex. Like Philip, Alexander embraced polygamy for diplomatic purposes. Rather than marrying princesses / noblewomen from powers neighbouring Macedon however, Alexander would take it to another level. Instead of an Illyrian princess, he married not one, but two Persian princesses. Not to mention the daughter of a prominent chieftain who ruled in modern day Uzbekistan – a noblewoman renowned as one of the most beautiful women in Asia.
Like his father, Alexander had both female and male lovers. He too had at least one younger eromenos – a Persian eunuch called Bagoas. And of course, that’s not to mention the interesting case of Hephaestion. But contrary to Philip’s well known promiscuity, Alexander’s sex life is depicted as a much more moderated one. ‘Like father like son’? Not so much when it came to the sex lives of these two Macedonian monarchs.
]]>The artefacts within the tombs dated to the middle-to-late 4th century BC and tantalisingly that spanned the reigns of Philip II and his son Alexander the Great.
But a ‘battle of the bones’ has been waged ever since around an ‘unfortunate age symmetry’, surrounding the unique double burial in Tomb II, where a gold ossuary chest held the cremated remains of a male in the main chamber, while female cremated bones lay in the adjacent antechamber.
An image of Tomb II being unearthed in 1977.
Who were they?
Initial analysis of the bones suggested the man was 35-55 at death and the woman 20-30 years. Vexingly, that meant they could be Philip II and his final young wife Cleopatra, who was murdered by Alexander’s mother Olympias; equally the skeletal remains could be Philip’s halfwit son Arrhidaeus, who died twenty years later when of similar age and with an equally young bride, Adea.
Both died at the hands, once more, of the vengeful Olympias in an infamous ‘double execution’ in her bid for survival in the post-Alexander world.
[The gold ossuary chest or ‘larnax’ holding the male bones in the main chamber of Tomb II. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Vergina Excavation Archive.
The gold-encased bow-and-arrow quiver or ‘gorytos’ found in the Tomb II antechamber with the female bones, along with gilded bronze greaves. Ekdotike Athinon S.A. Publishers.
The original excavator concluded the woman had ‘Amazonian leanings’, but the curators of the Archaeological Museum of Vergina believe the weapons belonged to the male next door. They still display a curious statement:
‘Weapons were for men what jewels were for women’,
despite the fact that no female accessories lay with the female antechamber bones, apart from a sumptuous diadem and austere Illyrian-styled pin.
The ornate throat protector or ‘pectoral’ found in the Tomb II antechamber with the female bones. Ekdotike Athinon S.A. Publishers.
Besides the final young wife of Philip II and the teenage bride of his son Arrhidaeus, academics have tried to link the woman’s bones to another of Philip’s wives, the obscure Meda of the Getae tribe of Thrace where queens met with ritual suicide at the death of their king, explaining the Tomb II double burial.
Another candidate is a hypothesised daughter of the Danubian-region Scythian king, Atheas, with whom Philip once planned an alliance; this would account for the Scythian quiver.
But these identifications are problematic: Thracian and Scythian wives were not cremated but throttled or had their throats slit for the honour of being buried with their king, and a hypothetical daughter of King Atheas does not appear in ancient texts.
Unravelling the mystery
The contention that the weapons belonged to the male was recently put to death when an anthropological team found a wound on the woman’s shinbone which proved beyond doubt that the weapons and armour were hers.
The trauma to her tibia had caused the shortening of her left leg, and one of the gilded greaves in her chamber was 3.5-cm shorter and also narrower than the other: it had obviously been custom sized to fit and hide her deformity.
In another ‘eureka moment’, their analysis of her never-before-seen pubic bones, which are most reliable age markers, put an end to more of the identity theories when she was more accurately aged at 32 +/- 2 years.
This ruled out Philip’s older brides and his final young wife Cleopatra, and it significantly excluded Arrhidaeus and his teenage wife Adea from Tomb II for good.
Small carved ivory heads found in Tomb II and thought to be likeness of Philip II and his son Alexander the Great. Grant, 2019.
There does not need to be a Scythian bride to explain a Scythian weapon however. The exquisite gold artefacts found in Scythian graves are, in fact, of Greek workmanship, most likely from Panticapaeum in modern Crimea.
But there was a thriving metalworking industry in Macedon in Philip’s day when weapons and armour were being produced. The local production of export items for Scythian warlords in this time of expanded diplomacy with Scythian tribes means the ‘mystery Amazon of Macedon’ might have been born rather closer to home.
Gold ‘gorytos’ found at Chertomylk, Ukraine; the overall pattern and layout is remarkably similar to the Vergina Tomb II example. Hermitage Museum.
Therefore, a strong case can be put forward for another candidate as the occupant of Tomb II: Cynnane, an overlooked, remarkable daughter of Philip II.
Who was Cynnane?
When Alexander the Great came to the throne after Philip’s assassination in 336 BC, he executed Cynnane’s dangerously popular husband Amyntas Perdicca, Philip’s nephew. But Alexander soon paired Cynnane in a political marriage to Langarus, a loyal warlord to the north.
Langarus died before the marriage was consummated, leaving Cynnane to raise her daughter by Amyntas Perdicca, who she ‘schooled in the arts of war’. The daughter was named Adea.
Soon after Alexander the Great died in Babylon in June 323 BC, Cynnane crossed to Asia with Adea against the wishes of the state regent, Antipater, determined to launch her into the developing game of thrones.
Perdiccas, Alexander’s former second-in-command in Asia, was just as determined to prevent the rogue royal women from the deadly politicking and sent troops under the command of his brother to intercept them.
Cynnane was run through in the resulting skirmish. Indignant at seeing a daughter of Philip murdered before their eyes, the soldiers demanded the teenage Adea be duly presented to the new co-king, Arrhidaeus.
Philip’s pugnacious granddaughter was now married to Philip’s halfwit son, and Adea was epitheted ‘Eurydice’, the regal name of the Argead queens. Both were eventually escorted back to Macedon by the aged regent, but not before the teenage Adea stirred the army to mutiny.
Travelling with them were surely her mother’s hastily cremated bones, as was the custom for the noteworthy who had fallen in battle.
Philip III ‘Arrhidaeus’ as pharaoh on a relief in Karnak.
Warrior women
Following Adea’s capture by Olympias in the ‘first war of women’, as the confrontation of 317 BC was called, she and her halfwit husband were given a rather interesting ultimatum: forced suicide by hemlock, sword or rope.
One tradition tells us the defiant Adea strangled herself with her own girdle, while the hapless Arrhidaeus was put to the Thracian dagger, after which Olympias would have had their bodies irreverently treated and buried without ceremony.
Adea’s martial training at her mother’s hand had always been a powerful argument that the antechamber weapons and bones in Tomb II were hers.
Although sources state that she and Arrhidaeus were later given burial at Aegae by their former ally Cassander once he wrested control from Olympias, nowhere do we read that they were buried in the same tomb or at the same time.
Scythian Archer on an Attic plate dated to 520-500 BC, equipped with the hip-slung ‘gorytos’ and distinctive compound bow. Grant 2019.
But Cynnane was also buried with ceremony at Aegae, the renowned warrior mother who reportedly slayed an Illyrian queen in single combat in her youth. Cynnane is the only credible option for the Tomb II ‘Amazon.’
Assuming she was born to her Illyrian mother Audata several years after she arrived at Philip’s court ca. 358 BC, Cynnane would fall within the newly confirmed age range of 32 +/- 2 for the female occupant of Tomb II.
Philip II must have been proud of his warlike daughter and what better present than a Scythian quiver for an ‘Amazon’ in the making after the famous Illyrian victory, or even as a wedding present when Philip paired her with his guardianed nephew, who was in fact first in line for the throne.
Atalanta
August Theodor Kaselowsky – Meleager presents Atalanta the head of the Calydonian boar August Theodor Kaselowsky, Neues Museum.
But there is another clue that argues for Cynnane: her reluctance to remarry following the death of Langarus. In this respect, Cynnane was presenting herself as something of an ‘Atalanta’, the virgin huntress of Greek myth who was loath to wed.
In ancient Greek art Atalanta was depicted as a Scythian, no less, in gender obscuring britches, high boots, geometrically patterned tunic with pointed hat, and equipped with the distinctive quiver and compound bow.
Depiction of a funerary cremation structure at Derveni, nearby Vergina. The body is resting on the top covered in a shroud. Grant, 2019.
Then there is the unspoken elephant in the room: no wife in any source is recorded as being buried interred in a tomb with Philip II when he was assassinated at Aegae in 336 BC, despite the detail we have of his funeral and even the names of the assassin and accomplices.
Indeed, recent analysis of the Tomb II bones makes it clear the man and woman were not cremated together; his bones were washed while hers were not, and the difference in their colour points to different funeral pyre temperatures. The visible powdering of her bones could well have come from long-distance transport in an ossuary.
Further, inconsistencies in the vaulted roofs of the two chambers comprising Tomb II led the excavator to conclude they were constructed, or completed, at different times.
The short-of-resources Cassander, who controlled Macedon from 316 – 297 BC, cost-effectively and yet with self-serving reverence, reunited Philip’s warrior daughter with her father in the as-yet empty antechamber.
Cross-section of Tomb II showing the main chamber and antechamber. Grant, 2019.
Solving the mystery
The anthropologists and material scientists analysing the bones requested permits for ‘next generation’ forensics – DNA analysis, radio-carbon dating, and stable isotope testing – to finally solve the mystery. Permission was denied in 2016.
The authorities remain reticent for modern science to challenge the current tomb labelling in the Archaeological Museum of Vergina. Politics prevail, and the mystery endures, but not for long.
Unearthing the Family of Alexander the Great, the Remarkable Discovery of the Royal Tombs of Macedon by David Grant was released in October 2019 and is available from Amazon and all major online book retailers. Published by Pen and Sword.
The extraordinary achievements of King Philip II of Macedon were vital to the remarkable legacy that has immortalised Alexander the Great’s name in history, and it is no surprise that several scholars argue that Philip was actually ‘greater’ than his famous son.
It was Philip who had laid the foundations of a strong, stable kingdom in the central Mediterranean – a powerful base from where his son set forth to conquer the world’s superpower, Persia. It was Philip who created the world’s most effective army that won his son his famous victories.
Here are 20 facts about the Macedonian monarch.
1: Philip spent much of his youth away from his homeland
Philip had spent much of his adolescence serving as a hostage of foreign powers: first at the court of the Illyrians and then later at Thebes.
2: He ascended the Macedonian throne in 359 BC
It followed the death of King Perdiccas III, Philip’s older brother, in battle against the Illyrians. Philip was initially chosen as regent for Perdiccas’ infant son Amyntas, though he quickly assumed the title of king.
3: Philip inherited a kingdom on the brink of collapse…
Perdiccas’ defeat at the hands of the Illyrians had not only resulted in the death of the king, but also of 4,000 Macedonian soldiers. Greatly weakened, the kingdom in 359 BC faced the threat of invasion from several enemies: the Illyrians, Paeonians and Thracians.
A coin minted during the reign of Perdiccas III, Philip’s older brother and predecessor.
4. …but Philip managed to restore stability
Through both diplomatic skill (big bribes mainly) and military strength, Philip managed to face down these threats.
5. Philip’s reforms to the Macedonian army were revolutionary
Philip transformed his army from a backward rabble into a disciplined and organised force, centred around the combined use of infantry, cavalry and siege equipment.
6. Arguably his greatest reform was to the Macedonian infantry…
A Macedonian phalanx, an infantry formation developed by Philip II.
Building on the innovations of Epaminondas and Iphicrates, two famous generals of the previous half-century, Philip reorganised his footmen.
He equipped each man with a six metre long pike called a sarissa, light body armour and a small shield called a pelta. These men fought in tight formations called the Macedonian phalanx.
7. …but he also made sweeping changes to his cavalry and siege equipment…
Philip reformed the famous Companions, the Macedonian heavy cavalry, into the powerful attacking arm of his military.
He also recruited the greatest military engineers in the Central Mediterranean, having noticed the benefits of having state-of-the-art military machinery when conducting sieges.
8. …and logistics
One of the forgotten, yet crucial, elements of any army’s success was logistics. Through several revolutionary actions, Philip greatly increased the mobility, sustainability and speed of his force on campaign.
He forbade the widespread use of cumbersome ox-carts in his army, for instance, introducing horses as a more effective pack animal alternative. He also reduced the size of the baggage train by forbidding women and children from accompanying the army when on campaign
These reforms provided Philip an invaluable edge over his more-burdened opponents.
9. Philip embarked on a campaign to expand Macedonia’s borders.
Backed by his new model army, he started cementing his kingdom’s power in the north, winning pitched battles, seizing strategic cities, improving the economic infrastructure (especially the gold mines) and cementing alliances with neighbouring realms.
10. He lost an eye during one of these campaigns
In 354 BC Philip laid siege to the city of Methone on the western side of the Thermaic Gulf. During the siege a defender shot an arrow that hit Philip in one of his eyes and blinded him. When he subsequently captured Methone, Philip razed the city.
11. Philip embraced polygamy
To gain the strongest possible alliances with several neighbouring powers, Philip married no less than 7 times. All were primarily diplomatic in nature, though it was said that Philip married Olympias, the Molossian princess, for love.
Within a year of their marriage, Olympias bore Philip a son: the future Alexander the Great.
Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great.
12. Philip’s expansion was not plain sailing
He encountered several setbacks during his military expansion.
Between 360 and 340 BC Philip faced stern opposition and found his movements rebuffed on many occasions: defeated both in sieges and in battles. Nevertheless Philip always came back and overcame his enemy.
13. By 340 BC Philip was the dominant power north of Thermopylae
He had transformed his kingdom from one on the brink of ruin to the most powerful kingdom in the north.
14. He then turned his attention south
Some Greek City States had already proven highly hostile to Philip’s expansionist tendencies, particularly the Athenians. Their worries were proved right when, in 338 BC, Philip marched south with his army and set his sights on Athens.
15. Philip gained his greatest victory in August 338 BC
The Battle of Chaeronea. August 338 BC.
Near the town of Chaeronea in Boeotia on either 2 or 4 August 338 BC, Philip routed a combined force of Athenians and Thebans in pitched battle, showing the strength of his new model army over the traditional hoplite fighting method.
It was at Chaeronea that a young Alexander earned his spurs, routing the legendary Theban Sacred Band.
16. Philip created the League of Corinth
Following his victory at Chaeronea, Philip achieved supremacy among almost all the mainland Greek city-states. At Corinth in late 338 BC, delegates from the cities met to swear an oath of loyalty to the Macedonian king.
Sparta refused to join.
17. Philip planned to invade the Persian Empire
Following his conquest of the Greek city-states Philip had turned his attention to his great ambition to invade the Persian Empire. In 336 BC he sent ahead an advance force under Parmenion, one of his most trusted generals, to establish a hold in Persian territory. He planned to join him with the main army later on.
18. But Philip never managed to fulfil this plan
Assassination of Philip II of Macedon causing his son Alexander to become king.
In 336 BC, at his daughter’s wedding feast, Philip was assassinated by Pausanias, a member of his own bodyguard.
Some say Pausanias was bribed by Darius III, the Persian king. Others claim Olympias, Alexander’s ambitious mother, had orchestrated the assassination.
19. Philip laid the foundations for Alexander the Great’s famous conquest
Alexander ascended the throne after Philip’s unexpected murder and quickly shored up his position. Philip’s transforming of Macedonia into the most powerful kingdom in the central Mediterranean had laid the foundations for Alexander to set forth on a great conquest. He was sure to take advantage.
Statue of Alexander The Great (Warrior on a Horse statue) at Macedonia Square in Skopje, Macedonia.
20. Philip was buried at Aegae in Macedonia
The tombs at Aegae were the traditionally resting place for Macedonian monarchs. Archaeological excavations of the tombs have occurred, with most believing that Tomb II houses the remains of the Macedonian king.
]]>