#39 PHILIP II OF MACEDONIA (c382-336BC): FROM BASKET CASE TO WORLD POWER

Philip, at twenty-one, became the king of poor and backward Macedonia, a small country lying across northern Greece. By the time of his death he had made Macedonia the dominant power in the western world and prepared it for his son, Alexander, to conquer the Persian Empire.

As the youngest son of Amynthas III, Philip was not groomed for the throne. After his father’s death, his country had disintegrated as his older brothers had fought unsuccessful battles against neighbouring countries.

For three teenage years Philip had been held hostage far from home, in the Greek city of Thebes, which was at that time, the dominant military force in Greece. There he carefully observed their military strategy and their training, their manoeuvres and their armaments. When he assumed the throne in 359BC, Macedonia was close to collapse. Philip bought off his dangerous enemies with gifts and a treaty, and he silenced the kings of his enemies by marrying their daughters: Audata, princess of Illyria; Phila, princess of Elimea and Olympias, princess of Epirus, who would become the mother of Alexander. Philip encouraged his nobles to educate their sons at his court, thereby building in their loyalty to his throne. While it is said Philip was prouder of his diplomatic successes than his military victories and the rest of his kingship was characterised by both.

Having defeated the Illyrians (today’s Croatians) Phillip captured a number of Greek coastal city-states either within or close to Macedonia. It was his occupation of Crenides, however, which allowed him to gain control of vital gold and silver mines thereby providing him with the means to finance his future invasions. He picked off Greek towns, one-by-one, occupying Thessaly and helping Thebes defeat its worst enemy thereby coopting it. Meanwhile, the brilliant Greek orator in Athens, Demosthenes, thundered against Philip’s advance in his powerful speeches (the Philippics) which would, at last, raise the Athenians against the Macedonians, but their response was too little too late and all of Greece except Sparta came under Macedonian rule. The deciding battle at Chaeroma in 338BC was the last time the Greeks would experience freedom from foreign occupation in two thousand two hundred years.

The way Philip handled his conquests showed his understanding of the Greek psyche and its political history as well as his skilful diplomacy. He created the League of Corinth, a league in which every Greek city-state had votes according to their military strength, all under his supreme command. It was then time for him to fulfil his years of planning and to redirect his armies away from Greece and towards the Persians in Asia Minor, but as his first troops crossed the Hellespont, he was assassinated. Alexander’s bodyguards killed the assassin as he attempted to escape.

Philip inherited a foreign dominated basket case in 359BC and in his reign of twenty-three years turned it into a world power. It would be the destiny of his son, King Alexander III, to conquer the Persian Empire.

Phillip was a reincarnation of Priam, the last king of Troy and was an aspect of the High Priestess line of Mary.

Conversation with the Gatekeeper

“It occurs to me that the young Philip’s time as a hostage in Thebes was a most important time for him. What exactly did he learn there?”

“Phillip learned a little humility and he would come to possess much more humility than Priam, although he would not yet approach the ideal of the servant ruler. What he learned first and most importantly was about the rule of law. Before Thebes, Philip believed a strong sword arm was able to hold a kingdom. Instead he learned that a real ruler governs people by walking softly and carrying a big stick. He observed that there was much art in government and administration and that trade compliments stable government.”

“As a hostage, wasn’t he a prisoner? How could he learn so much?”

“Phillip learned by observation. As a son of a king, he was treated as royalty and he was an observer in the court. He had conversations with senior public servants and he could observe the machinery of government and suddenly his eyes were opened.”

“What about Greek military tactics? Did he learn any of them?”

“He observed their military organisation, their lines of communication and mystery of their troop ‘supply’: how many people it takes to support one man in the field and this was one of his most important lessons for his future success. He also learned there were other ways of defeating an army than storming it – he discussed psychological warfare, including the use of rape, the poisoning of water supplies and the starving of citadels by cutting supply lines. So he learned that military victories were delivered by many tactics not just by head down, sword up and charge. And he learned much about court politics because he was forced to observe rather than be involved as a player.”

“He is coming across as strong and thoughtful; was he tall, dark and handsome too?”

“He was short at five foot two particularly in comparison to his captors, strongly muscled with a very strong upper body, strapping shoulders and short thick neck. He was blonde and extremely good looking in the squarish Greek style with piercing grey eyes which he would give to his son, Alexander. He kept his beard tidily clipped and in Thebes, he learned to dress it in perfumed oil, his curly hair he kept cropped close to his head. His beard was more brown than blonde and shot through, even then, with premature grey. He had large strong hands hard with the calluses of a sword and spearman. Considering his little schooling, Philip had a considerable intelligence with a shrewd mind and a good judge of human character, well capable of abstract thought, but he didn’t choose to use it other than what was necessary. He was a very practical man rather than thoughtful, strong willed with a rough charm. He was more comfortable among men than women and was bi-sexual which was not remarkable at that time.”

“There have been allegations he was a pederast.”

“No, exactly the opposite. He had great contempt for pederasts, which brings up another issue. One of his flaws was a propensity to be over harsh and unforgiving in his judgements and severe in his punishments. He was a great admirer of the Spartans because their philosophy produced really hard and tough men but he didn’t understand the emotional and psychological costs of their harsh society. He was ruthless apparently without a single twinge of conscience or morality. He was not so much unaccepting of his responsibility for his family as never actually seeing it. His royal children, his family and his other offspring… he had absolutely no interest in them. Like Priam, loyalty was his single outstanding value and he was closer to his bodyguard than to his family. He was slightly paranoid about his personal safety and with good reason given that Priam was assassinated and he brought this across from Priam’s life.”

“It seems he married mainly the daughters of his enemies.”

“His marriages were political power plays. He sought to harm his enemies by taking a weapon of retribution against them for bad behaviour. Philip was as accomplished a conspirator as he was a politician.”

“Was there any love in this soulless existence?”

“There was no love in Philip’s life. He saw life as a succession of debts, he owed loyalty to others, and they owed loyalty to him. The rough affection he enjoyed with his male companions was the closest he came to love. Women were a sub species created for sex. Philip is not every girl’s dream. Think about total self-interest, all ego, and you have Philip. His life is the opposite side of Marian love and compassion… it is an exploration of the dark side of Mary.”

“What drove Philip to conquer the surrounding lands?”

“Power! He secured his fiefdom by securing the lands around him and creating them as his own domain. Basically he was securing his own kingdom and then enlarging it… no more than that. He had much more of an idea of how to administer it however than his son did.”

“What kind of a man was he?”

“A good king who was a very lonely human being. By comparison with Alexander who was a lousy king, a great conqueror and an indifferent human being.”

“Was he a skilful diplomat as he claimed?”

“Not as you understand the profession of diplomacy. A diplomat would avoid giving offence whereas Philip would tell them all to go to hell. He was a good conspirator who used gunboat diplomacy.”

“Did he have a vision for Macedonia and the Greece he was starting to conquer?”

“No, none at all… it was just the accumulation of power and the creation of a bulwark against the Persians.”

“Was he the actual father of Alexander? Given the society you have described one couldn’t be sure?”

“Alexander had the same profile as his father; you can check it from their coins. Although Alexander’s image was not so bull-like and he was taller than his father, that’s all the proof you need.”

“Why did such a man, so disinterested in his family and focused on conspiracy and power, choose to have Alexander and Hephaistion tutored by Aristotle, the finest mind in Greece?”

“Philip thought if his son was taught to appreciate more culture, he would make a better king. He thought this would be a judicious and prudent approach to the future stability of his kingdom.”

“What was Philip’s view of Alexander?”

“He saw a wild boy with a great talent for warfare and sport. He didn’t see Alexander’s drive but he approved and encouraged his wildness.”

“And his view of his friend Hephaistion?”

“Philip saw Hepatisation’s strengths immediately. He saw his administrative and organisational capabilities and his mastery of detail and he decided that both of them should be taught by the most learned man he could entice. He offered Aristotle to write his own cheque which would give him the freedom and the opportunity to create his own school.”

“But why Aristotle? How did he decide on Aristotle?”

“Aristotle’s father was a physician of Philip’s doctor, his physician but he also sought wider advice. What everyone said was almost unanimous. Aristotle was the most talented teacher in the Greek civilization at that time. So Philip offered him more than he had ever earned and the freedom to establish his own school and control it through its formative years.”

“Who was involved in Philip’s assassination? There are many different theories which include Alexander and his mother who had been living in exile, a disgruntled lover of Philip or even King Darius III of Persia?”

“The assassination is about as clear as President Kennedy’s. And do you know why? The same reason. The assassin was killed immediately allowing speculation to flood in. Let me begin with Alexander’s alleged exile first. Alexander had been sent by his father, on his own, to Corinth to spend time with its ruler who was Philip’s friend. It was common to spend time under the guardianship of another ruler and Alexander did not have a close relationship with his father and Philip thought Alexander could learn in Corinth what he had learned in Thebes. Alexander returned to Macedonia for the wedding of his sister, Cleopatra. He was walking in a group to the amphitheatre with his father and a couple of Philip’s companions and his bodyguards when a man rushed out from the crowd. He stabbed Philip in the side and pierced his renal arteries. Alexander and the others made a pincushion of the murderer with their swords but it was not clear who among them actually killed the assassin. He was like a suicide bomber who knew he would die as he murdered the king. The story behind the assassination is this: He was the brother of a rape victim. Philip in a drunken orgy had raped a palace servant and Philip, being a skinflint had not compensated his victim well but threw a handful of coins at him. His victim suicided. At that time, the rape of women of a lower class was normal and homosexual rape below a man’s class was also acceptable. When families feuded, the main weapon to disgrace their enemy was rape, and the main weapon to reinforce their enemies’ submission was rape.”

“Was it a plot?”

“It was a paltry end to Philip’s life. It was, however, the kind of death he had often given others. But let me make it quite clear neither Darius nor Alexander conspired in Philip’s murder, the suicide bomber acted alone.”

“In 1977, a Greek archaeologist found a royal tomb at Vergina in Macedonia. Was it Philip’s?”

“No. It was a tomb of a major court functionary.”

“Will we find his tomb?”

“When you look for him in the right place. Philip was burned according to his wishes in a very old Macedonian ceremony. He was taken out onto the Macedonian plain and burned surrounded by his armaments and his dearest possessions and surrounded by the dead bodies of twelve of his horses. His royal chariot edifice was built over the top with no memorial. It is the same sort of burial a Scythian chieftain was honoured by and Philip thought it would be a grand way to be buried.”

“But where is the tomb?”

“About twenty miles from the capital. It’s on a plain so there are no reference points.”

“Why did Mary have to incarnate as Philip?”

“To get rid of submerged negative aspects of her character. We will come across these lives from time to time, often in the middle of her lives of sainthood. Without confronting her selfishness, her lust for power and her conspiratorial traits she couldn’t get rid of them and this man would be important in her life as Mary.”

“So when there are problems in your character you incarnate with all of them to try to eliminate them. It seems counter-intuitive. Was that his life’s purpose?”

“As Priam, he was to set up in Troy a bulwark against the Persian Empire. As Philip, it was to extend and disseminate Greek culture. His life ties in with Aristotle who ties in with Plato who ties in with Socrates and from Phillip’s loins comes Alexander and his foster-son Hephaistion. Philip’s life and his actions during his life were to provide a springboard for Greek cultural domination of the Balkan and Asia Minor for the next thousand years and in doing so to change the face of Europe.”

“Did he achieve this purpose, do you think?”

“Philip as he reviewed his life would not have thought so. He wanted to make a bulwark against the Persians whom he saw marching through his country to Greece. He was terrified of a Persian inundation; they were the single biggest force in the ancient world. They were defeated by the narrow neck of Turkey – the Dardanelles defeated them. Nevertheless, without the determined efforts of the Trojans and the Macedonians, they would have conquered Greece. He made possible the Hellenisation of Asia Minor by setting up trading posts which became Greek cities as Asia Minor was captured her Greeks as prized slaves would teach the children of the Roman Empire.”

“Was this his greatest achievement?”

“It was the welding together of the semi-wild, barbaric tribes with the Greek city states to create a nation of Macedonia out of the region.”

“And his spiritual challenge?”

“To rise above himself: eliminating his negative aspects, reducing his shadow side and no, he didn’t achieve it in his actual life but who knows what happened as he died. It seems, he tells me, he did so triumphantly while making his crossovers, perhaps in the Halls of Judgement. While his negative qualities were not expunged, a mechanism now existed for their control.”

“Then we’ll be able to see in his next life. Gatekeeper, do you like Philip?”

“Not at all. But I respect him. His son Alexander didn’t like him either but then he hardly knew him. I know him now and I still don’t like him but he accomplished a great deal and was a critical player in the construction of what would become Europe.”

“When do we see him again?”

“As Barnabas one of the disciples of Paul and there is another around that time which Mary wants you to discover yourself. As Barnabas he sold all his worldly goods and Christianised Antioch. He was the cousin of John Mark the evangelist who witnessed his gruesome death. But earlier he was given an unusual honour by Mary herself in recognition of his spiritual and practical achievements. He was allowed to be present in Ephesus around the time of Mary’s death! You can be sure she will deploy this aspect of herself again when the lives are right. You may remember the desert father, Anthony, who tried to explain to you Mary’s role in the ancient pantheon and Anthony of Egypt not one but two lives canonised. Now we turn to another aspect of her who will in a later life become her nephew, the son of her uncle Joseph of Arimathea.”