King Phillip II and Alexander

Part IB

Eckstein (A1) presented the historical significance of the King’s Peace and Isocrates’ argument in the Panegyricus. The following paragraphs will describe the King’s Peace, the Spartan betrayal, and how these historic events motivated Isocrates to make an impassioned plea, the Panegyricus, to the Greek city-states.

The King’s Peace was signed after eight years of warfare in ancient Greece. In the years 395 to 387 B. C., the Greek territories of Athens, Thebes, and Corinth were defeated when the king of Persia, Artaxerex II, pulled his support from the three territories and instead back the Spartans. Antalcidas, head of the Spartan militia, and Artaxerex II signed the King’s Peace, forcing Greece to grudgingly accept the terms of the Peace of Antalcidas. In this treaty, Persia won back the cities in Cyprus. The Persians also coveted cities in Ionia (now on the west coast of Turkey). Thebes in European Greece had to relinquish their power over Boeotian cities because of a clause in the treaty that all Greek political factions were to be self-ruling. Most importantly, the Persians agreed to financially support any war the Spartans pursued in the name of keeping the peace within the country of Greece between all the states which to that point were in a state of constant conflict.

As Eckstein (A1) stated, this was a bitter pill for the Greek states to swallow. They had defeated the Persians a number of times in the previous century. In 490, they defeated the Persians at Marathon. About eleven years later, they defeated the Persians again at Salamis with the navy, and at Plataea with the army. Also, only a decade prior, the hoplites, hired by Cyrus II, had defeated Artaxerex, forcing them back to the Black Sea and Aegean. Thus, the Spartan’s signing of the treaty, making them the armed keepers of the peace in Greece, and relinquishing Greek cities to Persia, was a proverbial slap in the face of the fiercely independent country.

As Eckstein (A1 – A2) explained, to Isocrates and many of the other Hellenic states, this betrayal was politically harmful to the independence of the city-states and perpetuated city-state conflict, guaranteeing economic the destruction of the region. In 380 B. C., Isocrates produced a written plea to all Greeks and passed the literature out at the Olympic games that year, famously referred to as the Panegyricus, which has become synonymous with speeches in which one is praised because of his praises for Athens. He sought all Greeks, including the Persian-backed Spartans, to unite together to avenge and defeat the Persians.

While the materials he presented were lauded, recounted Eckstein (A2), it failed to motivate the city-states to unite against the Persians to regain their independence. The document was seen as unrealistic, first because of the combative nature of the city-state territories, and second because of the significant size of the Persian armed forces, which had conquered territories as far as Asia. The combative and competitive nature of the city-states was reflected in his letter to Phillip II of Macedon as he sought to persuade him to lead the Greeks against the barbarians, the Persians. For example, he stated that even when uniting against the Persians, the union of the Spartans and the Athenians was based upon a union of rivalry, one seeking to outdo the other in battle for the glory and title of saviors of all of the Hellenic city-states.

However, it was noted, Eckstein (A2) stated, that the Persian’s growing empire was not impenetrable. The Egyptians’ constant rebellion and the uprising in Cyprus seemed to cause enough trouble for the Persians to be noteworthy, seemingly highlighting the fact that the Persians were not undefeatable.

This is when, Eckstein (A2) observed, Isocrates postulated that the Greek city-states would have to be forced under one powerful leader to lead the Greeks into victory over the Persians and unite the fiercely independent Greek city-states. This prompted Isocrates to write a letter in 346 B. C. to a man who he believed would be that one uniting force for the Greeks, Phillip II of Macedon.

In Panegyricus, many of the factors that contributed to the Persian domination of the Greeks were listed and catalogued to understand the state of affairs. Isocrates lists what he refers to as an old idea, attacking the Persians, with a fresh viewpoint that could finally end the city-state squabbles and motivate the Greeks to unite under one faction to defeat the Persians, which Eckstein (A3 – A16) conveyed. The letter to Phillip II is a window into what Isocrates felt were the factors contributing to the problems of the Greek city-states. He lists the Athens-Spartan conflict at the top of the list. However, it was not in kindred spirit he expresses reconciliation of Sparta and Athens. Athens, he expressed, is his native homeland, and his subsequent passages reveal his preferences for his own place of origin.

His arguments that Athens deserves to lead the Hellenic regions are numerous, Eckstein (A4-A16) conveyed. He credits the Athenians with bringing Greece out of a state of anarchy. They were the first city-state to rule with a more democratic model for all Greek city-states to follow. They introduced agriculture to the region, allowing men to live comfortably and not have to scrabble for existence. They are native to the area and did not travel from the north to settle the land. Moreover, Athens had, to that point, a central role in bringing the Hellenic city-states together through unifying commerce efforts and celebrations, citing Athens as the center for artistic endeavor and the home of philosophy in the West, conveying that it has always been the intention of the Athenians to work towards unity rather than domination of the areas around them. He credited the beginning of philanthropy as originating in Athens.

It seems Isocrates also acknowledges Athens as the center of conflict with the other Greek city-states, Eckstein (A11) noted. Isocrates stated that the center of the conflict with Sparta originated from a desire to be free from Athenian rule, beginning with the Peloponnesian War. Sparta incited other regions to rebel against Athens so they could be autonomous. He expresses the dubious duality Sparta conducts themselves, inciting other regions to gain freedom from Athens, only to become slaves to the barbarians.

It is also interesting to note Isocrates’ contempt for the Spartans, Eckstein (A4-A16) demonstrated, noting their course, self-centered nature, and their betrayal to the Hellenic city-states’ independence. Even when paying a compliment to Sparta in how they rushed to aid Athens in the battle at Marathon, expressing that they did march 40 miles a day to come to their aid, they did not even need their help. He also put Athens above the Spartans in battle, citing their dominance by sea as they defeated the Persian navy in the battle of Salamis. According to Eckstein (A9), this was an accurate account of the Athenians, and their navy did make a big difference in the battle of Salamis.

However, the Spartans, Isocrates noted according to Eckstein (A10), were not the only city-states that are responsible for allowing themselves to be ruled by outside factions. He charges the Persians with knowingly inciting discord amongst Greek factions, and have encouraged this discord for quite some time, so much so, that they were able to take over Asia while the Greeks remained disjointed from discord. This discord, he charged, has hurt them both at home and abroad. Had they been a united Greece, they could have taken Asia instead of the Persians, and they could have defended Ionia instead of allowing it to fall to the Persians (A13).

Isocrates, stated Eckstein (A15), pointed out that internal fighting has alone ruined their own economy and brought misery to its own people. He acknowledged that their city-state rivalry has often been the source of trouble, dismal living conditions, and unnecessary deaths of fellow Greek against fellow Greek.

Isocrates stated that since the Persians were responsible for their country’s inner turmoil, that the Greeks should rise in union to rid all of Greece from the tyranny of the Persians (Eckstein A15-A16). They should join together under the auspices of their hatred for the Persians as a unifying force just to drive out the Persians, who were at that point the source of all of the miseries going on in the country. He charges the peace treaty being anything but, citing the contradictions in the document, enslaving certain areas while citing the necessity of the Spartan’s rule to ensure autonomy in all the other regions. Isocrates stated that the people of Greece were great warriors, but were grinded to a halt because of the inner conflicts amongst city-states, forced into inaction because of the fighting.

The King’s Peace was the event that set forth the actions of Isocrates to make an impassioned plea, first to the people of Greece, then to Phillip II of Macedonia. His argument, that Athens should take charge of uniting the Greeks, is a reflection of the conflicts that tore apart the country and its overall effects upon the country.

Part IIA

In order to support or refute the statement for this part of the exam (Part IIA), one must either be on the side of Isocrates, then nine decades old, who supported King Phillip II, or Demonsthenes, who was against Phillip. As Eckstein (B1) observed, both men had opposing views upon the same man, King Phillip II. In this section, the portrayals of King Phillip II will be discussed.

Eckstein (B2) stated that Isocrates saw, after three and a half more decades of conflict, that the more democratic states of Greece were not able to reconcile, even to take advantage of the spoils of Asia, to take over the Ionia cities again and deliver them back to Greece, or to finally overthrow Persia and rid them of their poisonous influence over the Hellenic states. He came to the realization that Greece had to be forced into compromise by a powerful figurehead, a monarch. Macedon had a monarchy government, and Phillip II was the head. He saw the ability in Phillip to lead the people of Greece to a more peaceful era, even if it had to be by force.

He implored Phillip II to take power after Athens and Macedon reached a treaty that lasted six years (from 346 B. C. to 340 B. C.). He reached out to Phillip II to take over as king and lead all the Greek factions into a victory for the conquest in Persia and take what Isocrates felt what rightfully should have been theirs, if it weren’t for all the quarreling and fighting amongst themselves. Isocrates sought peaceful means with Phillip, and felt that submitting to his monarchy could be done peacefully amongst states. He called those opposed to the idea of Phillip’s reign irresponsible orators who imparted slanderous words against Phillip upon the ears of those who would listen. While his efforts to keep the peace between Athens and Macedon did not succeed, he did accurately predict Phillip’s eventual reign.

On the other side of the debate was Demonsthenes. Demonsthenes was not as enthusiastic about peace between Athens and Macedon as Isocrates was, according to Eckstein (B2).In his opposing viewpoint, he portrayed Phillip II as someone who lacked the knowledge and sensitivity to rule all of Greece.

Demonsthenes was of the viewpoint that the peace treaty did little to curtail Phillip’s military activities. Phillip, he pointed out, had encroached upon territories of Athens and took this as a direct aggressive act against Athens. The rest of this argument is taken from Eckstein (B3 through B12).

Essentially, Demonsthenes was against Phillip II from taking reign because he felt Phillip was not honoring the treaty. Moreover, he felt that any Greek state submitting to Phillip was going to lose their freedom. They, at that point, were free states, and even though they didn’t get along most of the time, at least they had their freedom to rule themselves as they pleased. Under a monarch, especially one that didn’t seem to have all of the Hellenic people’s interests at heart, they would lose the freedom to make their own governments.

Some alienation of the Macedonians with the other city-state regions was apparent. The Macedonians referred to other Hellenic people who settled into their region as the Greeks. This established a sense of otherness between Phillip’s people and other Hellenic people. Also, even Isocrates seemed to chide Phillip in his letter to him for not treating all the city-states as friends, and asked him to treat everyone on friendlier rather than aggressive terms.

What seemed to make Demonsthenes most precautious about Phillip was his ambition to battle and take over territories. If he was truly out to rule in the interest of the Hellenic people, he would have spent all his time making friends rather than conquering territories. He implied that he would not be satisfied until he conquered all the world, stating that not even all the riches in Asia would be enough to satisfy his appetite.

He argues that some people state that Phillip is not the same as the Spartans. However, Demonsthenes felt that he is indeed the same, if not worse. Phillip, Demonsthenes argues, surrounds himself not with legitimate militiamen, but with hired thugs whose practices in war and battles are questionable. Also, he pointed out, Phillip seemed to contradict himself just like the Spartans had when they were fighting on the side of money for the Persians, rather than for the people in their homeland. Their only concern was domination, and Demonsthenes pointed out that Phillips’ recent actions echoes that of the Spartan’s actions. In other words, when Phillip in his role as a ruler within the confines of the Greek nation, makes a promise, he is on the side of power and riches. He, stated Demonsthenes, is not a benevolent despot.

Demonsthenes saw Phillip as a danger to all of the Hellenic people. He goes as far to say that if they are ready to defend themselves upon this impending danger (Phillip), then they should do so, but be prepared for the realities of war. Demonsthenes, as it turned out, seemed to turn the tides and politically sway the people to take Phillip II of Macedon as a serious threat.

The focus of Demonsthenes and Isocrates were like night and day. Isocrates wanted someone to unite the Greeks, what he saw as an impossibility unless everyone was united persuasively, hopefully not by force, under one supreme ruler. Then he and the Hellenic people could successfully overthrow all foreign control of all of Greece, including the territory of Ionia ruled by the Persians.

Demonsthenes felt that the immediate threat to their way of life and their fierce independence was Phillip rather than foreign factions. Demonsthenes’ arguments are mainly focused upon the internal conflicts within the Greek borders. He rightly focused upon the inconsistencies between actions and the words of Phillip.

It seemed that Demonsthenes raised some valid concerns about Phillip and his behavior. Moreover, the idea that the Greeks would have to agree to relinquish whatever freedoms they had enjoyed in their governments to that point was a valid argument. It was a fact, and not slanderous as Isocrates claimed.

It seems like Isocrates was willing to sacrifice an awful lot just to finally be rid of the Persians. He seemed to overlook a lot of valid points that Demonsthenes brought up. It is interesting that the two did not seem to hit upon many of the same points or debate upon the same points. Isocrates was willing to give up his freedom, and Demonsthenes was not for the sake of Hellenistic culture and cohesiveness.

Moreover, if one examines Isocrates’ argument to Phillip II carefully, there are some holes in his logic. He felt that all the Greek city-states needed a monarch to force them into peace and unite as one strong front against the Persians. Yet, when he implored Phillip II to take power, he asked him to seek a peaceful route. This defies logic, because if the Hellenic city-states were all vying for power over the entire nation, which is something that Isocrates himself sought for his home of Athens in his argument for all countrymen to come together willingly three and a half decades earlier, but under the auspices of Athens, then how are they going to agree to be ruled by one monarch willingly? It seems either he didn’t think his argument through, or everyone saw the plurality in his statements, or maybe he was just completely bent upon the eradication of the Persians. Either way, he himself demonstrated the type of double talk Demonsthenes pointed out in Phillip II, and although he didn’t point out Isocrates personally, perhaps this is what shined through to others as they made their decision to perceive Phillip II as a threat to their city-states.

It is based upon these points that with certainty, one could say that Demonsthenes was not just being egotistical and selfish in his arguments against Phillip II. It seemed he was truly concerned about the actions of a man who made statements and agreements and did not live up to them. He did not see the unification of the Hellenic people under Phillip II. He only saw the Hellenic city-states going from one overbearing, conquering ruler to another, except they would be ruled by a national king rather than a foreign king whose intention was to keep Greece weak by encouraging a state of war amongst them. It is apparent that Demonsthenes did not oppose Phillip upon the basis of selfishness. It is apparent that he opposed Phillip because of valid reasons. In the end, the Hellenic people heeded his words. They must have found some truth to what he was saying.

Works Cited

Eckstein, Arthur. Course Packet #42A: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. College Park: University of Maryland. 2013. Print.

Eckstein, Arthur. Course Packet #42B: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. College Park: University of Maryland. 2013. Print.