What do you think?
Rate this book
Φίλιππος Β΄ ο Μακεδών
Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη του πρόσφατα αρχαιολογικά ευρήματα και αναλύοντας τις γραπτές μαρτυρίες, ο Ian Worthington, καθηγητής αρχαίας ιστορίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Μισσούρι, ανασυνθέτει με λεπτομέρειες το βίο του πατέρα του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου, φωτίζοντας τα επιτεύγματά του στον πολιτικό, τον οικονομικό, τον στρατιωτικό και τον πολιτισμικό τομέα.
Στο βιβλίο αυτό περιγράφεται το πώς ο Φίλιππος πέτυχε τους στόχους που είχε θέσει και ακόμα περισσότερους, συνδυάζοντας τη διπλωματία (μέρος της οποίας ήταν η πολυγαμία), την απάτη, τη δωροδοκία και τη στρατιωτική ισχύ με μια απαράμιλλη ικανότητα να στρέφει τους εχθρούς του τον έναν εναντίον του άλλου.
Ο συγγραφέας επίσης εξετάζει τις επιρροές που δέχτηκε ο Φίλιππος, τα κίνητρα και τους στόχους του, αλλά και τη σχέση του με τον Αλέξανδρο. Ήταν ένας ιμπεριαλιστής που ήθελε να στερήσει την ελευθερία από την υπόλοιπη Ελλάδα, όπως τον κατηγορούσε ο Δημοσθένης, ένας καιροσκόπος που εκμεταλλεύτηκε κυνικά τις περιστάσεις και την τύχη για να πετύχει τους σκοπούς του; Ή μήπως ήταν ένας βασιλιάς που επιδίωκε απλώς να ενώσει τη Μακεδονία, η οποία οδηγούνταν σταθερά προς τη διάλυση εξαιτίας του εμφύλιου σπαραγμού και των επιδρομών των ξένων, να αλλάξει την οικονομία της και να δημιουργήσει συνθήκες ευημερίας για το λαό της, να τη μετατρέψει σε υπερδύναμη του αρχαίου κόσμου; Φιλοδοξούσε να γίνει απόλυτος μονάρχης και να θεοποιηθεί στο τέλος της ζωής του;
Αν ναι, σε ποιο βαθμό επηρέασε σε αυτό τον Αλέξανδρο, που η αξίωσή του να λατρεύεται ως θεός υπαγόρευε τις πράξεις και τις πολιτικές του;
Στο βιβλίο αυτό περιγράφεται το πώς ο Φίλιππος πέτυχε τους στόχους που είχε θέσει και ακόμα περισσότερους, συνδυάζοντας τη διπλωματία (μέρος της οποίας ήταν η πολυγαμία), την απάτη, τη δωροδοκία και τη στρατιωτική ισχύ με μια απαράμιλλη ικανότητα να στρέφει τους εχθρούς του τον έναν εναντίον του άλλου.
Ο συγγραφέας επίσης εξετάζει τις επιρροές που δέχτηκε ο Φίλιππος, τα κίνητρα και τους στόχους του, αλλά και τη σχέση του με τον Αλέξανδρο. Ήταν ένας ιμπεριαλιστής που ήθελε να στερήσει την ελευθερία από την υπόλοιπη Ελλάδα, όπως τον κατηγορούσε ο Δημοσθένης, ένας καιροσκόπος που εκμεταλλεύτηκε κυνικά τις περιστάσεις και την τύχη για να πετύχει τους σκοπούς του; Ή μήπως ήταν ένας βασιλιάς που επιδίωκε απλώς να ενώσει τη Μακεδονία, η οποία οδηγούνταν σταθερά προς τη διάλυση εξαιτίας του εμφύλιου σπαραγμού και των επιδρομών των ξένων, να αλλάξει την οικονομία της και να δημιουργήσει συνθήκες ευημερίας για το λαό της, να τη μετατρέψει σε υπερδύναμη του αρχαίου κόσμου; Φιλοδοξούσε να γίνει απόλυτος μονάρχης και να θεοποιηθεί στο τέλος της ζωής του;
Αν ναι, σε ποιο βαθμό επηρέασε σε αυτό τον Αλέξανδρο, που η αξίωσή του να λατρεύεται ως θεός υπαγόρευε τις πράξεις και τις πολιτικές του;
456 pages, Paperback
First published October 14, 2008
About the author
Ian Worthington
67 books23 followersIan Worthington has been Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University since 2017. Before then, he held an endowed chair as Curators' Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Missouri, USA. He hails from northern England, taking his B.A. at Hull and M.A. at Durham, before moving to Monash University to do his Ph.D.
Worthington specializes in Greek history and oratory. To date, he has written 9 sole-authored books, 1 co-authored book, edited 9 books, translated 2 volumes of the Greek orators (in the University of Texas Oratory of Classical Greece series), and written over 100 articles and essays on Greek history, oratory, epigraphy, and literature.
Worthington specializes in Greek history and oratory. To date, he has written 9 sole-authored books, 1 co-authored book, edited 9 books, translated 2 volumes of the Greek orators (in the University of Texas Oratory of Classical Greece series), and written over 100 articles and essays on Greek history, oratory, epigraphy, and literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 2, 2026
This is an account of the life and times of Philip II of Macedonia, the same Philip whom we all know as the father of Alexander the Great. Though he still lives in the shadow of his more famous son, this biography presents ample evidence that he deserves a share in the latter's greatness, maybe even on an equal footing.
Perhaps there is no better witness to the debt Alexander owed to his father than the fact that he inherited a state that was more prosperous and in better shape than the one Philip inherited from his predecessor.
When Philip became king in 359 BC, Macedonia was in a pathetic state and teetering on collapse, disunited and completely surrounded by foes, with enemies either encroaching or preparing to encroach on its territory, and with a history of foreign interference in its affairs. Our author takes us through how Philip managed to completely transform this reality and reverse each one of these developments, unifying the state, stimulating the economy, improving border security, and essentially sculpting an empire out of a weak backwater.
Philip was on campaign almost every year of his reign, and this account follows him across these campaigns while also tracing the diplomatic maneuvering that accompanied them (which for the latter focuses on his approach to mainland Greece and the settlement he sought to implement with the poleis there). The military narrative is necessarily concise given the paucity of the sources, but it nevertheless covers the various tribes, cities, and regions Philip conquered. I must note that this is not primarily a military history of Philip's reign (lest a potential reader be put off by my description), as greater weight is given to the diplomacy surrounding his campaigns, specifically the delicate geopolitical dance south of Mount Olympus. This in itself reflects Philip's own approach to power, since he anchored his rule in military force, but whenever circumstances allowed, diplomacy offered a more advantageous means of achieving his aims.
Below are three notes I deemed worthy of mention. The first two because they're essentially a summation of Philip's main reasoning concerning his approach to Greece on the one hand and Persia on the other. The last I simply found interesting particularly in relation to its implications vis-à-vis Alexander:
I/ ON THE GREEKS:
From what the author wrote, the foundation for Philip's approach to the city states south of Macedonia was an offshoot of three concerns:
a/ Foreign interference: Thebes and Athens had a long history of meddling in Macedonian affairs. Naturally, Philip wanted to completely do away with foreign influence, having set his sights on hegemonic power over Greece and beyond.
b/ Border security: The presence of Athenian settlements and outposts along the Macedonian seaboard, together with the Chalcidian League to the east, posed a threat to Macedonian security. One can also say that Macedon had a well justified fear of invasions, with powerful neighbors being too close for comfort, something backed by past experience.
c/Lebensraum...but first the Greeks: Philip had his eyes on the east, specifically Thrace. [Whether this was also in view of securing communication lines in preparation for an invasion of Asia, the author does not explicitly say, since we cannot tell precisely when the thought of campaigning against the Persians first came to him.] He could not campaign there while leaving his rear exposed, without first settling the matter with the Greeks to the south of his borders. Therefore, he sought to reach a settlement on his own terms specifically when it came to the main powers of Thebes and Athens. His aim was to neutralize the threat they posed by setting one power against the other and exploiting their mutual hostility to ensure that neither could turn its attention toward Macedon. In doing so, he relied primarily on diplomacy, backed when necessary by military force.
II/ ON THE PERSIANS:
The plausible reasons for his planned invasion of Persian controlled Asia were as follows:
a/ Persian aggression: Satrapal assistance to Perinthus (a city Philip was besieging at one point) meant that the Great King himself was now acting against Philip. Add to this the signs of a potential rapprochement (real or imagined) between the Persians and the Athenians, and the matter was too alarming to simply let go.
b/ Restless king of a restless army: Philip based his rule on the army, and there was a need for his soldiers to remain continuously deployed and perpetually on campaign, since the stability of this pillar of his rule depended on an active army winning wars. Once the Greek problem had been politically settled and his other frontiers were secure, there was no obvious direction left for this restless military machine except eastward.
c) Money: Financial troubles also seem to have been a motivation, since the wealth of the eastern treasuries was well known, and Philip seems to have been running short of funds by this time, due to his military expenditure, his constant campaigning, and the other expenses associated with court life, bribing different Greek leaders, and using money to bribe cities to break off sieges...etc.
*On a related note: when it comes to the extent of his planned Persian campaign, it was never conceived to encompass anything approaching the scope of Alexander's campaign, that is, complete and total conquest. He did not intend to overthrow the Great Persian King, but merely to invade and conquer territory in Asia Minor and add it to his empire. The scope of Philip's planned campaign was therefore relatively small and specific.
III/ ON PHILIP'S GHOST:
Alexander's relationship with Philip was complex, and within it we can sense a radical change from emulation to resentment. Philip's influence over Alexander in life appears to have hardly diminished in death, as his ghost continued to cast a long shadow over his son's personality and deeds. According to the author, it may have ultimately motivated him to do what he did. Following this line of thought and according to what was mentioned previously, Philip's goal in Asia seems to have been to add Asia Minor to his empire and not to completely conquer the Great King's domains in the East. Against this background, Alexander's grandiose plan to conquer the Persian Empire can be seen as his way of making it clear that he intended to go further than his father. This drive to outdo, surpass, and outshine Philip became the motivation for his actions. Or, as the author puts it:
"Yet Alexander seems not to have been content to follow in his father’s footsteps but wanted rather to eclipse his deeds, to do the great things that he used to tell his friends he would be unable to achieve while Philip lived. This became the motivation for the vast majority of his actions."
Furthermore, and again as per the author:
"Everything else in his reign became subordinated to his drive towards self-deification. From that came his eventual belief in his own divinity.... The genesis of this drive was his attempt to excel Philip at all costs."
At last, in his conclusion to the work, the author compares the legacies of Alexander and his father. The verdict: if we focus on the nature of kingship and the permanence of the inheritance bequeathed by each to those who followed them (rather than on military conquest and territorial gains where Alexander clearly surpassed his father) we see a great chasm between Philip and Alexander.
Alexander's imperial project fell almost immediately after his death, splintering into pieces fought over by his generals and successors. His claim to personal divinity and adoption of regal Eastern ways alienated those around him. His failure to produce an heir during his lifetime doomed his spear won lands. All this and much more can be said of his faults. Though it suffices to say that, even if one maintains that Alexander was indeed the greater of the two, "His greatness, if such it is, is surely further proof of the success, sensibility and indeed greatness of Philip II."
When it comes to the digestibility of this work, I would consider reading up on the period immediately preceding it specifically the period of Theban hegemony (and Spartan hegemony to a lesser extent) , since throughout the book there is frequent reference to events, people, and past occurrences that, if one was not informed about them (even if only passingly and just in terms of the general structure of the period), could leave one feeling somewhat disoriented and directionless. Some familiarity with this period would therefore be helpful and as such I would recommend 'The Sacred Band' by James S. Romm for the Theban hegemony, and 'Sparta: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Superpower' by Andrew Bayliss for sparta.
Rating: 4/5.
Perhaps there is no better witness to the debt Alexander owed to his father than the fact that he inherited a state that was more prosperous and in better shape than the one Philip inherited from his predecessor.
When Philip became king in 359 BC, Macedonia was in a pathetic state and teetering on collapse, disunited and completely surrounded by foes, with enemies either encroaching or preparing to encroach on its territory, and with a history of foreign interference in its affairs. Our author takes us through how Philip managed to completely transform this reality and reverse each one of these developments, unifying the state, stimulating the economy, improving border security, and essentially sculpting an empire out of a weak backwater.
Philip was on campaign almost every year of his reign, and this account follows him across these campaigns while also tracing the diplomatic maneuvering that accompanied them (which for the latter focuses on his approach to mainland Greece and the settlement he sought to implement with the poleis there). The military narrative is necessarily concise given the paucity of the sources, but it nevertheless covers the various tribes, cities, and regions Philip conquered. I must note that this is not primarily a military history of Philip's reign (lest a potential reader be put off by my description), as greater weight is given to the diplomacy surrounding his campaigns, specifically the delicate geopolitical dance south of Mount Olympus. This in itself reflects Philip's own approach to power, since he anchored his rule in military force, but whenever circumstances allowed, diplomacy offered a more advantageous means of achieving his aims.
Below are three notes I deemed worthy of mention. The first two because they're essentially a summation of Philip's main reasoning concerning his approach to Greece on the one hand and Persia on the other. The last I simply found interesting particularly in relation to its implications vis-à-vis Alexander:
I/ ON THE GREEKS:
From what the author wrote, the foundation for Philip's approach to the city states south of Macedonia was an offshoot of three concerns:
a/ Foreign interference: Thebes and Athens had a long history of meddling in Macedonian affairs. Naturally, Philip wanted to completely do away with foreign influence, having set his sights on hegemonic power over Greece and beyond.
b/ Border security: The presence of Athenian settlements and outposts along the Macedonian seaboard, together with the Chalcidian League to the east, posed a threat to Macedonian security. One can also say that Macedon had a well justified fear of invasions, with powerful neighbors being too close for comfort, something backed by past experience.
c/Lebensraum...but first the Greeks: Philip had his eyes on the east, specifically Thrace. [Whether this was also in view of securing communication lines in preparation for an invasion of Asia, the author does not explicitly say, since we cannot tell precisely when the thought of campaigning against the Persians first came to him.] He could not campaign there while leaving his rear exposed, without first settling the matter with the Greeks to the south of his borders. Therefore, he sought to reach a settlement on his own terms specifically when it came to the main powers of Thebes and Athens. His aim was to neutralize the threat they posed by setting one power against the other and exploiting their mutual hostility to ensure that neither could turn its attention toward Macedon. In doing so, he relied primarily on diplomacy, backed when necessary by military force.
II/ ON THE PERSIANS:
The plausible reasons for his planned invasion of Persian controlled Asia were as follows:
a/ Persian aggression: Satrapal assistance to Perinthus (a city Philip was besieging at one point) meant that the Great King himself was now acting against Philip. Add to this the signs of a potential rapprochement (real or imagined) between the Persians and the Athenians, and the matter was too alarming to simply let go.
b/ Restless king of a restless army: Philip based his rule on the army, and there was a need for his soldiers to remain continuously deployed and perpetually on campaign, since the stability of this pillar of his rule depended on an active army winning wars. Once the Greek problem had been politically settled and his other frontiers were secure, there was no obvious direction left for this restless military machine except eastward.
c) Money: Financial troubles also seem to have been a motivation, since the wealth of the eastern treasuries was well known, and Philip seems to have been running short of funds by this time, due to his military expenditure, his constant campaigning, and the other expenses associated with court life, bribing different Greek leaders, and using money to bribe cities to break off sieges...etc.
*On a related note: when it comes to the extent of his planned Persian campaign, it was never conceived to encompass anything approaching the scope of Alexander's campaign, that is, complete and total conquest. He did not intend to overthrow the Great Persian King, but merely to invade and conquer territory in Asia Minor and add it to his empire. The scope of Philip's planned campaign was therefore relatively small and specific.
III/ ON PHILIP'S GHOST:
Alexander's relationship with Philip was complex, and within it we can sense a radical change from emulation to resentment. Philip's influence over Alexander in life appears to have hardly diminished in death, as his ghost continued to cast a long shadow over his son's personality and deeds. According to the author, it may have ultimately motivated him to do what he did. Following this line of thought and according to what was mentioned previously, Philip's goal in Asia seems to have been to add Asia Minor to his empire and not to completely conquer the Great King's domains in the East. Against this background, Alexander's grandiose plan to conquer the Persian Empire can be seen as his way of making it clear that he intended to go further than his father. This drive to outdo, surpass, and outshine Philip became the motivation for his actions. Or, as the author puts it:
"Yet Alexander seems not to have been content to follow in his father’s footsteps but wanted rather to eclipse his deeds, to do the great things that he used to tell his friends he would be unable to achieve while Philip lived. This became the motivation for the vast majority of his actions."
Furthermore, and again as per the author:
"Everything else in his reign became subordinated to his drive towards self-deification. From that came his eventual belief in his own divinity.... The genesis of this drive was his attempt to excel Philip at all costs."
At last, in his conclusion to the work, the author compares the legacies of Alexander and his father. The verdict: if we focus on the nature of kingship and the permanence of the inheritance bequeathed by each to those who followed them (rather than on military conquest and territorial gains where Alexander clearly surpassed his father) we see a great chasm between Philip and Alexander.
Alexander's imperial project fell almost immediately after his death, splintering into pieces fought over by his generals and successors. His claim to personal divinity and adoption of regal Eastern ways alienated those around him. His failure to produce an heir during his lifetime doomed his spear won lands. All this and much more can be said of his faults. Though it suffices to say that, even if one maintains that Alexander was indeed the greater of the two, "His greatness, if such it is, is surely further proof of the success, sensibility and indeed greatness of Philip II."
When it comes to the digestibility of this work, I would consider reading up on the period immediately preceding it specifically the period of Theban hegemony (and Spartan hegemony to a lesser extent) , since throughout the book there is frequent reference to events, people, and past occurrences that, if one was not informed about them (even if only passingly and just in terms of the general structure of the period), could leave one feeling somewhat disoriented and directionless. Some familiarity with this period would therefore be helpful and as such I would recommend 'The Sacred Band' by James S. Romm for the Theban hegemony, and 'Sparta: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Superpower' by Andrew Bayliss for sparta.
Rating: 4/5.
December 17, 2011
I hate to give such a well researched book a low rating, but I feel compelled to do so. I read a lot of history, ALOT of it. It informs my own writing (fiction) and helps me in building worlds. Not to mention its my major and I really am passionate about it.
But one thing that really annoys me about academic history (and this book is certainly 'academic') is that academics are terrible writers.
History is a story, in fact 'story' is the root word of history. It is the human story; there is no higher drama than the tales of those who accomplished great things in the past. All of the greatest works of fiction ever created (and I love my fair share of them) are still not as dramatic or epic as real life human events.
Most people now hate history. Why? Because, to them, it is boring. Whose fault is this? I believe that academia must own 90% of the blame for this. Sometime after World War Two the historical profession was taken over by those who would rather deal in theory (read: BS) rather than deal with what REALLY ACTUALLY HAPPENED. This, of course, took all of the humanity away from the subject matter and made history a boring, dusty place to be.
Ian Worthington obviously spent a great amount of time researching his subject and while he (thankfully) dealt with WHAT REALLY HAPPENED rather than some inane academic theories as to why without ever bothering to delve into what REALLY HAPPENED, he does so in a way that is at best a chore to read.
Philip II of Macedonia is easily one of the most interesting people to read about in Western History, just my two cents but Alexander the Great would not have accomplished what he did had the building blocks not been laid down by his father. Philip's story is one of battles, seiges, high stakes diplomacy, fiery oratory and being a Macedonian and a mans man also lots of drinking and sex and violence. How could this possibly be a boring story?
Kudos to Ian Worthington for researching so thoroughly, however I seek a better written account of this great man of history.
But one thing that really annoys me about academic history (and this book is certainly 'academic') is that academics are terrible writers.
History is a story, in fact 'story' is the root word of history. It is the human story; there is no higher drama than the tales of those who accomplished great things in the past. All of the greatest works of fiction ever created (and I love my fair share of them) are still not as dramatic or epic as real life human events.
Most people now hate history. Why? Because, to them, it is boring. Whose fault is this? I believe that academia must own 90% of the blame for this. Sometime after World War Two the historical profession was taken over by those who would rather deal in theory (read: BS) rather than deal with what REALLY ACTUALLY HAPPENED. This, of course, took all of the humanity away from the subject matter and made history a boring, dusty place to be.
Ian Worthington obviously spent a great amount of time researching his subject and while he (thankfully) dealt with WHAT REALLY HAPPENED rather than some inane academic theories as to why without ever bothering to delve into what REALLY HAPPENED, he does so in a way that is at best a chore to read.
Philip II of Macedonia is easily one of the most interesting people to read about in Western History, just my two cents but Alexander the Great would not have accomplished what he did had the building blocks not been laid down by his father. Philip's story is one of battles, seiges, high stakes diplomacy, fiery oratory and being a Macedonian and a mans man also lots of drinking and sex and violence. How could this possibly be a boring story?
Kudos to Ian Worthington for researching so thoroughly, however I seek a better written account of this great man of history.
October 23, 2018
Was looking for a book on Phillip as it always seemed to me that what he accomplished was in many ways more impressive and complex than his more famous son. This book does a great job of telling that story in an easy to read narrative form, while giving you a great understanding of the source material.
November 29, 2016
THIS WAS INCREDIBLE. I really enjoyed learning around Alexanders father and how he united Macedonia and how he paved the way for his son. I am definitely going to be checking out some of Worthington's other books because his writing his phenomenal.
Now to write a paper for this.
Now to write a paper for this.
September 28, 2025
Fantastic biography of one of the most unknown hegemons of European history. Everyone knows his son, Alexander the Great, but few know about his father, Philip. He built the first nation-state in Europe, unifying, for the first time, all the Hellenic world (except Asia Minor due to his unforeseeable assassination). He took a poor, uncultured, and politically divided people, the Macedonians, and turned them into the most powerful empire in Europe at the time. How did Alexander manage to do what he did? Most of it was thanks to the impressive strategic accomplishments of his strangled father. A must-read for those who want to understand Greek history, particularly the rise of Alexander and the demise of Athens. If anything, it feels Worthington glosses over some details (i.e., Aristotle's involvement with Alexander or the Pella court). Still, I guess he wanted to keep the reading fluid, which he definitely achieves.
January 3, 2015
A first-rate biography - probably the best of its kind that could be written at our present level of archeological knowledge - of the complex, immensely capable father of Alexander the Great. Here's my review:
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/rev...
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/rev...
January 16, 2012
Somewhat revisionist of Alexanders role, but probably right so. Makes a good case that Philips achievements outshone his sons.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews