A Manual of Ancient History Part 20

Alexander, in opposition to his rival, Ptolemy of Alorus, placed on the throne by Pelopidas, sends his youngest brother Philip as hostage to Thebes: in the same year he is deposed by Ptolemy, 368.

Reign of Ptolemy, 388-365, with the stipulation imposed, 367, by Pelopidas, that he shall only hold the sceptre in reserve for the two younger brothers. Murder of Ptolemy, 365, by Perdiccas III.

who is nearly overwhelmed by Pausanias, another and earlier pretender to the crown; he is at last firmly seated on the throne by the Athenians, under Iphicrates, 364. But as early as 360 he falls in the war against the Illyrians, leaving behind him a son, Amyntas, still a minor, and a younger brother Philip, who escapes from Thebes in order to gain possession of the throne.

7. The reign of Philip, which lasted twenty-four years, is one of the most instructive and interesting in the whole range of history, as well on account of the prudence he displayed, as for the manner in which his plans were arranged and executed. Though it may be difficult to trace in his morals the pupil of Epaminondas, yet it is impossible to view without feelings of astonishment the brilliant career of a man, who, under the almost hopeless circ.u.mstances in which he commenced his course, never lost his firmness of mind, and who in the highest prosperity preserved his coolness of reflection.

The history of Philip, even in his own days, was distorted to his disadvantage by orators and historians. Demosthenes could not, Theopompus would not, be impartial; and the information contained in Diodorus and Justin is mostly derived from the work of the latter.

OLIVIER, _Histoire de Philippe, roi de Macedoine_. Paris, 1740, 2 vols. 8vo. A defence of Philip.

DE BURY, _Histoire de Philippe, et d'Alexandre le grand_. Paris, 1760, 4to. A very mean performance.

TH. LELAND, _The History of the Life and Reign of Philip king of Macedon_. London, 1761, 4to. Dry, but exhibiting much reading and strict impartiality.

In MITFORD, _History of Greece_, vol. iv, Philip has found his most zealous panegyrist and defender. It would seem that, even in the present day, it is impossible to write an impartial history of this monarch.

8. Melancholy posture of the Macedonian affairs at the beginning of Philip's reign. Besides victorious foes abroad, there were at home two pretenders to the throne, Argaeus, backed by Athens, Pausanias, supported by Thrace; and Philip himself, at first, was merely regent, and not king. In the two first years, however, every thing was changed, and Macedonia recovered her independence. The newly-created phalanx ensured victory over the barbarians; recourse was had to other means than force for success against the suspiciousness of Athens and the neighbouring Greek settlements, particularly against the powerful Olynthus. It is in the conduct of these affairs that the peculiar sagacity of Philip is displayed.

After the defeat of Argaeus, peace is purchased from Athens by a momentary recognition of the freedom of Amphipolis, 360.--Removal of Pausanias by means of an accommodation with Thrace.--By the conquest of the Paeonians and Illyrians, 359, the boundaries of Macedonia are extended to Thrace, and westward to the lake Lychnitis.--As early as 360 Philip was proclaimed king.

9. Development of Philip's further plans of aggrandizement.--By the gradual subjection of the Macedo-Greek cities, he proposed, not only to make himself sole master in Macedonia, but also to remove the Athenians from his domain.--The first object of his policy against Greece was to get himself acknowledged as a h.e.l.len, and Macedonia as a member of the h.e.l.lenic league. Hence the subsequent tutelage in which Macedonia held Greece was not converted into a formal subjection, a proceeding which would have savoured too much of barbarian origin.--The execution of all these plans was facilitated by the possession of the Thracian gold mines, which enabled Philip to create finances as well as the phalanx.

Capture of Amphipolis, 358; in the mean while Athens is amused with promises, and Olynthus with the momentary cession of Potidaea, which had likewise been captured: this event is followed by the conquest of the mountainous districts, abounding in gold, which extend from the Nestus to the Strymon, and furnished an annual income of nearly 1,000 talents.

10. The interference of Philip in the affairs of Thessaly dates from the year 357; the possession of that country was an object equally important for the furtherance of his views upon Greece, as for the improvement of his finances. He first stepped forth as the deliverer of Thessaly, and ended in making it a province of Macedonia.

Expulsion of the tyrants from Pherae, at the request of the Aleuadae, 356; the tyrants, however, receive support in the sacred war from the Phocians under Onomarchus. The final defeat of Onomarchus, 352, makes Philip master of Thessaly; he places Macedonian garrisons in the three chief places, and thus supports his authority in the country until he is pleased to make it entirely a Macedonian province, 344.

11. The protraction of the sacred war in Greece furnished Philip with an excellent opportunity of promoting his views upon that country; although his first attempt at an irruption, too precipitately undertaken, was frustrated by the Athenians. The capture of Olynthus, notwithstanding the a.s.sistance afforded it by the Athenians, after a season of apparent inaction, insured the safety of the frontiers in his rear; and by a master stroke of policy, almost at the very moment in which he was driving the Athenians out of Euboea, he found means to enter with them into negotiations, which, after repeated emba.s.sies, were closed by a peace, opening to him the way through Thermopylae, and enabling him to raise a party favourable to himself within the very walls of Athens.

12. First descent of Philip into Greece, and termination of the sacred war by reducing the Phocians. The place which he now obtained in the Amphictyonic council, had been the height of his wishes; and the humility of Sparta proved how firmly his ascendancy over Greece was already established.

13. Brief view of the state of Greece, and more particularly of Athens, after the sacred war; description of the means by which Philip succeeded in creating and supporting parties favourable to his own interests in the Grecian states. Bribery was not his only instrument; what he gave he borrowed from others; the main feature of his policy was, that he seldom or ever recurred to the same means. Scheming and consistent even in his drunken revels, he hardly ever appears under the same form.

Dreadful consequences to the morals of the Greeks, resulting from the spirit of party, the decline of religion, and the vast increase in the circulating medium, produced by the treasures of Delphi and Macedonia.--Estimate of the power of Athens during the period of Demosthenes and Phocion. It seems that, unfortunately, the eloquence and political acuteness of the former was not accompanied with sufficient talents for negotiation; the latter, perhaps, did not place confidence enough in his country, while Demosthenes placed too much. In spite of public indolence and effeminacy, Athens was still enabled to support her rank as a maritime power, the navy of Philip not being equal to hers.

# A. G. BECKER, _Demosthenes as a Statesman and an Orator_. An historico-critical introduction to his works: 1815. A very useful work, both as a history and as an introduction to the political orations of Demosthenes.

14. New conquests of Philip in Illyria and Thrace. The Adriatic sea and the Danube appear to have been the boundaries of his empire on this side. But the views of the Macedonian king were directed less against the Thracians, than against the Grecian settlements on the h.e.l.lespont; and the attack of the Athenian Diopithes furnished him a pretext for making war against them. The siege, however, of Perinthus and Byzantium, was frustrated by Phocion, to the great vexation of Philip; an event which aroused the Athenians, and even the Persians, from their lethargy.

15. Policy of Philip after this check.--At the very time that, engaged in a war against the barbarians on the Danube, he appears to have wholly lost sight of the affairs of Greece, his agents redouble their activity.

aeschines, richly paid for his services, proposes in the Amphictyonic council, that, to punish the sacrilegious insults of the Locrians to the Delphian oracle, he should be elected leader of the Greeks in this new sacred war. Following his usual maxim, Philip suffers himself to be entreated.

16. Second expedition of Philip into Greece. His appropriation of the important frontier town of Elatea soon showed that, for this time at least, he was not contending merely for the honour of Apollo.--Alliance between Athens and Thebes brought about by Demosthenes.--But the defeat of Chaeronea in the same year decided the dependence of Greece. Philip now found it easy to play the magnanimous character towards Athens.

17. Preparations for the execution of his plan against Persia, not as his own undertaking, but as a national war of the h.e.l.lenes against the barbarians. Thus, while Philip, by obtaining from the Amphictyons the appointment of generalissimo of Greece against the Persians, secured in an _honourable_ manner the dependence of the country, the splendour of the expedition flattered the nation at whose expense it was to be conducted. It is a question, indeed, whether Philip's own private views extended much further!

18. The internal government of Macedonia, under so skilful and successful a conqueror, must necessarily have been absolute. No pretender would dare to rise up against such a ruler, and the body guard ([Greek: doryphoroi]) established by him at the beginning of his reign, and taken from the Macedonian n.o.bility, contributed much to keep up a proper understanding between the prince and the n.o.bles. The court became a military staff, while the people, from a nation of herdsmen, was converted into a nation of warriors.--Philip was unfortunate only in his own family; but the blame is not to be attributed to him if he could not agree with Olympias.

19. Philip murdered by Pausanias at aegae, probably at the instigation of the Persians, while celebrating the marriage of his daughter.

20. The reign of ALEXANDER the GREAT, in the eyes of the historical inquirer, derives its great interest, not only from the extent, but from the permanence, of the revolution which he effected in the world. To appreciate properly the character of this prince, who died just as he was about to carry his mighty projects into execution, is no easy task; but it is totally repugnant to common sense to suppose that the pupil of Aristotle was nothing more than a wild and reckless conqueror, unguided by any plan.

ST. CROIX, _Examen critique des anciens historiens d'Alexandre-le-grand_, 2nd. edition, _considerablement augmentee_.

Paris, 1804, 4to. The new edition of this, which is the princ.i.p.al work on the history of Alexander, and important in more respects than one, contains more than the t.i.tle implies, though by no means a strictly impartial estimate of that prince's character.

21. Violent commotions at court, in the conquered countries, and in Greece, after the death of Philip. Great as his power appeared to be, the preservation of it depended entirely on the first display of character in his successor. Alexander showed himself worthy to inherit the sceptre by his victorious expedition against the Thracians; (to whom, and more especially to his alliance with the Agrians, he was afterwards indebted for his light horse;) and by the example which he exhibited to Greece in his treatment of Thebes.

22. Appointment of Alexander in the a.s.sembly at Corinth to be generalissimo of the Greeks. Yet what his father would probably have turned to a very different account, he allowed to remain a mere nominal office.--Development of his plan of attack upon Persia.--The want of a navy, soon experienced by Alexander, would probably have frustrated his whole project, had not Memnon's counterplan of an inroad into Macedonia been thwarted by the celerity of the Macedonian king.

23. Pa.s.sage over the h.e.l.lespont, and commencement of the war. The tranquillity of his kingdom and of Greece appeared to be secured, Antipater being left at the head of affairs.--The victory on the Granicus opens to Alexander a path into Asia Minor; but the death of Memnon, which soon after followed, was perhaps a greater advantage than a victory.

24. The victory of Issus, gained over Darius in person, appears to have given Alexander the first idea of completely overturning the Persian throne, as was proved by the rejection of Darius's offers of peace. When indeed have not the plans of conquerors been dependent on the course of events? Yet Alexander must have been pretty certain of his future victory, since he permitted Darius to escape, while he sat down seven months before Tyre, in order to make himself master of the sea; and, after the conquest of Egypt without a battle, to which the possession of Tyre opened the way, to build Alexandria, and erect to himself a monument more lasting than all his victories.

Although Alexandria perhaps in the end may have surpa.s.sed the expectations of the founder, yet the selection of the site, favourable only for navigation and commerce, shows that an eye was originally had to those objects.

25. Invasion of Inner Asia, facilitated by the tacit submission of the ruling tribes, and by the state of cultivation in which the country was found. On the plains of Arbela the Macedonian tactics were completely triumphant. It might now be said that the throne of Persia was overturned; and the unexpectedly easy capture of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis, was surely of more importance for the moment than the pursuit of a flying king.

Insurrection of the Greeks quelled by Antipater; Alexander himself falls in with the malcontent envoys to Darius in the interior of Asia.

26. The subjection of the north-eastern provinces of the Persian empire would perhaps have been attended with the greatest difficulties, had not the astonis.h.i.+ng activity of the conqueror crushed in their birth the schemes of the treacherous Bessus, who, after the a.s.sa.s.sination of Darius, wished to erect a separate kingdom in Bactria. The Jaxartes was now the northern boundary of the Macedonian monarchy, as it had hitherto been that of the Persian. Besides, the possession of the rich trading countries, Bactria and Sogdiana, was in itself an object of vast importance.

During this expedition, the execution of Philotas and his father Parmenio took place, though both were, probably, guiltless of the conspiracy laid to their charge, 330. After the death of Darius, Alexander met with almost constant opposition in his own army: the majority of the troops fancying that that event precluded the necessity of any further exertions. Cautious as Alexander was in his treatment of the Macedonian n.o.bles, we may discern, not however by the mere example of c.l.i.tus, how difficult they found it to banish from their memory the relations in which they had formerly stood to their kings.

27. Alexander's expedition against India had, no doubt, its origin in that propensity to romantic enterprise which const.i.tuted a main feature in his character. Yet what could be more natural than that a close view of Persian splendour, the conquest of such wealthy countries, and the desire of prosecuting his vast commercial designs, should gradually mature in the mind of the Macedonian king the plan of subjecting a country which was represented as the golden land of Asia. To this likewise the scantiness of geographic information must have greatly contributed; if he pressed forward to the eastern seas, the circle of his dominion would, it was supposed, be complete.--It appears very certain that Alexander was dest.i.tute of a sufficient knowledge of the country when he entered upon this expedition.

Alexander's invasion was directed against Northern India, or the Panjab; in those days a populous and highly cultivated country; now the seat of the Seiks and Mahrattas; and then, as now, inhabited by warlike races. He crossed the Indus at Taxila (Attock,) pa.s.sed the Hydaspes (Behut or Chelum,) and, availing himself of the quarrels between the Indian princes, defeated the king, Porus. He then proceeded across the Acesines (Jenaub) and Hydraotes (Rauvee). The eastern verge reached in this expedition was the river Hyphasis (Beyah;) here, having already proceeded half way to the Ganges, the conqueror was, by a mutiny in his army, compelled to retreat. His return was through the country of the Malli (Multan) as far as the Hydaspes, when the majority of his troops took s.h.i.+p, and were floated along that stream into the Acesines, and from thence into the Indus, which they followed down to its mouth.

RENNEL, _Memoir of a Map of Hindostan_. London, 1793, (3d. edit.) and

ST. CROIX, _Examen_, etc. (see p. 216.) furnish all the necessary historical and geographical explanations relative to the Persian and Indian campaigns of Alexander.

28. Although Alexander was obliged to give up the project of conquering India, yet the connection between Europe and the east, which has continued from that time, was the work of his hands. While the communication on land was secured by the establishment of various settlements, the communication by sea was opened by the voyage of his admiral, Nearchus, from the Indus to the Euphrates. In the mean time Alexander himself proceeded to Persis and Babylon, across the desert, and the unexplored provinces of Gedrosia and Carmania.

Nearchus's voyage (our knowledge of which is derived from his own journal, preserved in Arrian's _Indica_) lasted from the beginning of October, 326, to the end of February, 325: nearly the same time was occupied in the almost incredible land march of the king.

VINCENT, _The Voyage of Nearchus from the Indus to the Euphrates_.

London, 1797, 4to. Exhibiting the most learned researches, and ill.u.s.trated with excellent charts.

29. After the abandonment of India, the whole circuit of Alexander's conquests was precisely that of the former Persian empire; his later projects were probably directed against Arabia alone. However easy it had been to make these conquests, it was a more difficult task to retain them; for Macedonia, exhausted by continual levies of men, could not furnish efficient garrisons. Alexander removed this difficulty, by protecting the conquered from oppression; by showing proper respect to their religion; by leaving the civil government in the hands of the native rulers who had hitherto possessed it; and by confiding to Macedonians the command only of the garrisons left in the chief places, and in the newly established colonies. To alter as little as possible in the internal organization of countries was his fundamental principle.

30. Simple as Alexander's plans were in the outset, their simplicity was more than compensated by the magnitude and importance of their results.

Babylon was to be the capital of his empire, and consequently of the world. The union of the east and the west was to be brought about by the amalgamation of the dominant races by intermarriage, by education, and, more than all, by the ties of commerce, the importance of which much ruder conquerors, in Asia itself, soon learnt to appreciate. In nothing probably is the superiority of his genius more brilliantly displayed, than in his exemption from all national prejudice, particularly when we consider that none of his countrymen were in this respect to be compared with him. To refuse him this merit is impossible, whatever judgment we may form of his general character.

31. Sudden death of Alexander at Babylon by fever; under the peculiar circ.u.mstances of the time, the greatest loss mankind could experience.

From the Indus to the Nile the world lay in ruins; and where was now the architect to be found, that could gather up the scattered fragments and restore the edifice?

Alexander's disorder may be easily accounted for by the hards.h.i.+ps he had undergone, and the impure air to which he exposed himself in cleaning out the ca.n.a.ls about Babylon. He certainly was not poisoned; and in the charge of immoderate drunkenness brought against him, we must take into account the manners of the Macedonian and Persian courts. Was it not the same with Peter the Great? In estimating his moral character we must bear in mind the natural vehemence of his pa.s.sions, ever inclined to the most rapid transitions; nor should we forget the unavoidable influence of constant success upon mankind.