Hey folks! This week we pick up on the fallout from Greece's constant debilitating wars, with the rise of Makedon and Philip II happening at the same time. What does your document suggest to you about the state of things in the fourth century, as the Greeks reap the rewards of the fight for hegemony and the barbarians to the north become rivals for leadership in the Aegean?

“The Murder of Philip II” by Plutarch details the division within the family of Phillip the father of Alexander the Great. Many of these issues started with the marriage between Philip and Cleopatra, Olympias, Alexander's mother, would mistreat her. In a meeting between Phillip and Cleopatra's Uncle Attalus, the latter stated that Phillip might actually have a chance at having a true heir, which upset Alexander. After these events, Alexander tried in several different ways to ensure his future rule, including arranging a marriage to the daughter of a king from a different nation, which Phillip is not happy with. Later on, Philip the ii is murder, due to the many disagreements that had happened with his close family in the time close to his death, many accuse Olympias and Alexander of killing him.

Therefore, I have selected the work titled "The Beginning of Philip of Macedon's Reign" by Justin since Philip is one of the important figures who expertly shaped the Greek world, and I just wanted to see how the ancient author described the commencement of his reign. Most striking is Justin's description of Philip inheriting a kingdom on the verge of disintegration, surrounded by enemies and internally disordered. Indeed, the stress on crisis is but an emphasis on his chief theme: that Philip's achievements owe nothing to good fortune but to careful strategy, political skill, and decisive military reform. The document essentially portrays a world characterized by regular warfare, a changing and unstable leadership, and alliances that change again and again, and shows how fragile even states would be and how much they depended on a ruler's personal ability. Compared to other types of writing, Justin's supports the argument that Philip quite literally transformed Macedon and changed the balance of power in Greece, although one could say that Justin's presentation of Philip's success was much more moralized and dramatic than the average modern historian. This overall portrayal conforms with the notion that Philip was at the turning point of Greek history and serves to demonstrate the competitive, unstable environment of the classical period.

The reading I chose this week was Plutarch’s account of the murder of Philip II because it shows the drama and family conflict behind Alexander the Great’s rise to power. What grabbed my attention most was the scene at Philip’s wedding, when Attalus insulted Alexander by calling him a “bastard,” and Philip, drunk and furious, actually stumbled in front of everyone while trying to attack his own son. That moment stood out because it shows how unstable things had become inside the royal family.

From my perspective, Plutarch is showing that Philip’s murder didn't come out of nowhere. The tension between Philip. Olympias, and Alexander kept building, especially after Philip married Cleopatra. Pausanias may have swung the dagger, but Plutarch hints that Olympias and possibly Alexander had strong motives as to want Philip gone.

This document gives us a clear picture of Macedonian politics. Power depended a lot on personal relationships, honor, marriage, and family loyalty. It also connects to what we learned in class about how Macedon was more chaotic and violent compared to the political systems of Athens and Sparta.

I’m intrigued to learn more about Olympias. Plutarch portrays her as jealous and manipulative, but I'm curious to know whether this reflects reality or the bias of ancient male writers describing a powerful woman.

The document that I chose was “The First Philippic”. After what I read about Philip II, I had to see what plans and discussions they had to “deal” with him. When reading through it, a part of the passage that stood out to me was when Demosthenes told the assembly of politicians that it’s not because Philip II was unbeatable, but that the Athenians were lazy and lacked motivation. On one hand I find this to be a reasonable statement since Olynthus tried defecting from Philip in favor of Athens, but did nothing. On the other hand, Athens is literally tearing at the seams, having to recover from the effects of the Peloponnian War, losing most of their allies, lost the Third Sacred War, and dealing with internal issues. What Demosthenes is trying to say is that Athens needs to actually get their act together if they want to have any chance at beating Philip II and that they better hope that his suggestion works, because to them, everything is unclear. In my opinion, this document shows that it comes from a time and place where part of Athens was succumbing to the success of Philip II’s rising power and to the wounds of past conflicts and wars. How Demosthenes portrays Philip II’s allies and connections would seem to support other readings portrayal of them in that time and place seeing that Phocis, in the threat of being destroyed and taken over, had no other choice but to agree on surrender, albeit at the price of all male adults, would have the most positive view of Philip II. I would like to know about Sparta’s view on Athens situation and if it ever changed from how they usually think, see that it partially involves them too.

The document I chose for this week is titled “The Last Stand.” It explores the political decline, civic apathy, and corruption that plagued the Greeks, particularly the Athenians, during the fourth century. Generations of struggle for dominance had left them vulnerable. Their assemblies prioritized flattery over genuine guidance, while bribery eroded unity and preparedness for potential threats. Despite possessing resources, they lacked the discipline and shared purpose necessary to effectively utilize them. Meanwhile, northern powers like Macedon exploited Greek divisions and fear, leading to the downfall of Greek cities. The downfall was not due to military weakness but rather internal betrayal and the erosion of the spirit that once safeguarded their freedom.

The article I chose is The Murder of Philip II, because I was watching the series about Alexander the Great and the scene about the murder of King Philip caught my attention because Alexander and his mother were suspects. The part that stood out to me the most was when Cleopatra’s uncle, Attalus, suggested that the lawful successor of the kingdom would be Cleopatra’s son. Alexander then felt threatened and insulted and threw a cup at Attalus. Then Philip tried to defend Attalus by attacking Alexander but ended up slipping and falling. I think Plutarch wanted to highlight Alexander’s background and humanize him and show that his rise to greatness came with a background of a lot of turmoil. This article shows about Macedonia that there was a lot of tension surrounding politics and who would reign and have power. I would like to know more about how accurate the events are in Plutarch’s writing.

I picked the Plutarch reading about the murder of Philip II because it honestly felt like I was reading ancient Greek drama mixed with family mess, and it helped me understand how wild the fourth century really was. The part that hit me the hardest was when Attalus stood up at Philip’s wedding and basically called Alexander a fake son in front of everybody. That one line set off a whole chain of problems, and it made me realize how fragile power was back then. It feels like Plutarch is trying to show us that even though the Greeks were supposed to be focused on winning hegemony and dealing with northern rivals, their leaders were tearing each other apart inside their own homes. This document tells me that the fourth century wasn’t just about battles and politics, it was about jealousy, favoritism, and family beef that could literally decide who ruled a kingdom. It also connects to other readings because we keep seeing how the Greeks couldn’t stay united, and this shows that even kings couldn’t keep their own families together. But it also kind of goes against the idea that Macedonia was super strong and stable because clearly they had their own chaos happening behind closed doors. What I want to know more about is if Alexander or his mother actually had something to do with Philip’s murder, because Plutarch hints at it but never straight up says it, and now I’m sitting here wondering how much of this was revenge, politics, or both at the same time.

For this week's reading, I have chosen to read the document by Justin about the beginning of Phillip of Macedon's reign. I was interested in wanting to learn about Phillip and his origin of becoming king. I was surprised by Phillip's brother to sacrifice his brother as a hostage for peace with other nations. Honestly, I would think Alexander, Phillip's brother, would offer a woman or something else valuable than Phillip. I was also expecting to read something terrible about Phillip during his reign as king, most kings I've learn about or read do something terrible, but the author here in his document praises Phillip. Justin wanted the reader to see the greatness of Phillip and how good a king he was. Phillip was pretty in a sense like an ordinary guy, just like every regular person who just happened to be their king. Phillip brought this golden age to Macedon during his time as king. Phillip is way better than his better Alexander from this reading and the rest of this family.

Macedon was in a place of change; they were tired of all these wars, the nation was in poverty, and the people needed a real leader, and Phillip was that ruler everyone had been wanting and needed. I think this document can relate to the other readings, how every nation in Hellas wants a leader like Phillip seeking to find this era for their city, country, etc. Macedon has achieved this era of greatness with no corruption in politics and peace. Hellas has been trying to get to this place like Macedon. I would love to learn more about Phillip's legacy and what else he has done as king before his death. I've read about his beginnings and a little after, and now I would like to see more of Phillip and what the next king does to top Phillip. Do the people of Macedon like the new king or not? Does the next king have pressure to be better than Phillip, who was before him?

I choose The Last Stand beacuse it was so interesting how he dies during the his last moments of life.

"The Last Stand" refers to the Battle of Chaeronea at around 338 BCE , where an association of Greek city-states, led by Athens and

Thebes defeated by Philip II of Macedon. This battle is often called the last stand of Greek freedom because it effectively ended

the independence of the Greek city-states. Demosthenes, who was warned about the Macedonian threat and urged

resistance, was present at the battle, and his final moments of life was described as a "last stand". After a direct threat

to the city, Athens joined forces with Thebes to fight Philip. His defeat meant the end of independent city-states in Greece. The result

was the formation of the League of Corinth, which Philip used to control the region. Following a similar theme from the First

Philippic, in the Olynthiacs, Demosthenes gives a warning of the consequences of inaction.

I chose Demosthenes' speech because it shows the internal struggles of Athens when Philip of Macedon was advancing. What I found most interesting was his argument that the worst failures of the past are, surprisingly, the best hope for the future. This is because they show that they have not yet tried everything. He says that the real danger is not just an outside enemy, but corruption inside the nation, people who don't care, and speakers who are more interested in being nice than in telling the truth.

This document shows that the democracy is getting worse. People are more interested in themselves and less interested in their civic duty. It talks about other things written about the exhaustion of the Greek forces after the wars of the previous century, but from the point of view of someone who was involved in the fighting. To see things differently, I would like to look more closely at what his political opponents say, as they probably had a more realistic approach to Macedonia.

This week I chose to read The First Philippic by Demosthenes. I picked it because I was curious about why he was so worried about Philip of Macedon and how he tried to convince the Athenians to act. One passage that stood out to me was when Demosthenes warns that Philip is succeeding not because he is stronger, but because Athens is too slow and divided. That really showed his frustration with his own city.

I think Demosthenes was trying to communicate urgency. He wanted Athenians to realize that their old way of handling politics—long debates, hesitation, and internal fighting—did not match the speed and ambition of Philip. This document tells us that fourth-century Greece was weakened after years of exhausting wars, and that traditional Greek city-states were losing the unity and confidence they once had.

Compared to our other readings, Demosthenes’s speech supports the idea that Greece’s decline opened the door for Macedon’s rise. While writers like Isocrates saw Philip as a potential leader for Greece, Demosthenes viewed him as a direct threat. This contrast shows how divided Greek perspectives were during this time of major political change.

The reading I went with was “The Murder of Phillip II”, it interested me because I’ve always had questions about his death and wanted to see how it was viewed at the time. A detail that stood out to me was the passage about the wedding banquet for Phillip and Cleopatra, Attalus made a comment that implied that Alexander was illegitimate or unfit for the throne. Plutarch was primarily trying to chronicle the life and character of Alexander the Great. This is shown when he establishes a hostile relationship and lays a foundation for suspicion. The time period that is telling us about is Macedonia and the Greek world in the mid-4th century BCE, or around 336 BCE. This document could be contradicting the “Official” view as it details how Pausanias murdered Phillip after failing to get justice from the king for a previous outrage. While this was the reason given, its heavily implies on the conspiracy involving Alexander and Olympias and that Pausanias was just an instrument in their plan.  

For this week’s discussion response I chose the article by Plutarch on The Murder of Philip II. The purpose behind my selection of this reading was based upon my curiosity around his ‘unexpected’ and ‘suspicious’ death. Initially, I considered this account to be nothing more than another case or example of parricide. However, after looking at the details around the murder of Philip II, it seems rather demoralizing that despite the prestige and power he bestowed upon Alexander; along with his ‘devotion’ to his wife Olympias, and his ‘loyal’ bodyguard, Philip II would be killed by those whom he trusted. True, this claim has not been fully proven, but we can be certain that ‘conspirators’ against Philip II were present and determined to fulfill the goal of murdering their king.   

Regardless of the unfortunate circumstances around the death of Philip II, he attained major achievements through military innovations which helped him to reduce the “rebellious Maedi”, driving out the ‘barbarians.’ Philip II demonstrated his tactical brilliance in warfare at the Battle of Chaeronea. Even further through diplomacy and marriage alliances (i.e., with Olympias and Cleopatra), Philip II spread his ‘sphere of influence’ even without fighting; creating stability around Makedon. This suggests that even at the height of Macedonian power, the monarchy was not bureaucratically stable; and it depended almost entirely on the personal authority and charisma of the king.

What cannot be ignored throughout this reading, is the fallout of his family from the alliances that Philip II formed. The friendship with Demaratus the Corinthian did help (for a moment), to amend some of the damage that was done between Alexander the Great and his father. “It ill becomes you,” replied Demaratus, “to be so solicitous about Greece, when you have involved your own house in so many dissensions and calamities.” Good attempt to no avail.   

Overall, Plutarch’s account of Philip II’s murder reveals that the rise of Makedon was rapid and transformative, but fragile. It showed a lot of uncertainty about the succession of a new ruler and stability from aristocratic rivalries. In his attempt to cement a new political order, Philip II’s ambitions were not realized upon his death. I must wonder: "If Philip II had placed his family’s well-being above securing victories over his enemies and forging political alliances, could he have avoided assassination and possibly achieved greater control over Greece than what history attributes to his son, Alexander the Great?"

The Last Stand is a speech given by Demosthenes during the 340s BCE in Athens as a way to try and build a residence against the growing threat that was Philip of Macedonia. It was interesting because it takes a look at the political degradation in Athens. During this time Philip would have been amassing a sizable portion of land north and east of Macedon and would now start to move south encroaching on Athenian land and borders. Overall Demosthenes sees Athens as having fallen from its former grace and stripped of many of the traits that gave it its pride. Demosthenes goes on to describe how modern Athenians are far more invested in their own fame and notoriety as orators instead of trying to get to some larger truth "if you rightly examine, you will find it chiefly owing to the orators, who study to please you rather than advise for the best. Some of whom, Athenians, seeking to maintain the basis of their own power and repute, have no forethought for the future, and therefore think you also ought to have none;". It would be interesting to learn more about these bribes and other political corruption and how it effected Athens ability to stand to the needs of the people.

I picked Isocrates’ letter because the idea of him asking Philip II to unite all the Greek cities caught my attention. The part that stood out most was when he explains that Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Argos are all exhausted from fighting and could actually come together if someone strong enough guided them. It surprised me how openly he admits their weaknesses and how much he leans on shared myths and history to convince Philip.

To me, this document says a lot about how unstable Greece was at the time. The city-states were proud but clearly worn down, and Isocrates makes it obvious that constant war left them vulnerable. It connects with other readings that show the same decline and confusion after years of conflict. I’m still curious about whether regular people actually wanted Philip’s leadership, or if this was mostly Isocrates hoping someone would finally step in and fix things.

I chose the first reading about the beginning of Philip of Macedon's reign, this topic had interested me as it talks about the situation that Macedon was in and how it got out. There are a few details within this reading that I find interesting. For one I find Philips strategy and reasoning is very interesting for his time period as it demonstrated many ideals that was not widely shared. One example of that is wanting to take over Thessaly for the purpose of gaining their calvary in order to add them to their military, this is interesting as many civilizations at the time are too prideful to adopt such a strategy. I also find it interesting that he payed off many other civilizations when he first gained power in order to almost buy more time. Something I also personally find interesting is how Philip of Macedon is shown to be a merciful ruler who had spared the people who took his eye but as well as the Athenian fleet. I think the author is trying to both highlight the importance of the time period and the importance of Philips rule and what he had also influenced. This document seems to support certain idea's that we have discussed about Athens as they had attempted to force themselves into power. This is similar to many of the events where Athens involves itself in another place leading to war or a need to control. I would like to know more about specific battle and strategic tactics that were used.