Change and continuity in the aims of Philip and Alexander

Introduction: A Tale of Two Kings

In this chapter, we look at one of the biggest debates in the Rise of Macedon: Did Alexander just finish what his father started, or did he throw away his father’s plans to chase his own wild dreams? Understanding change and continuity (what stayed the same and what changed) is vital for your A Level exam, as it helps you evaluate the motives of these two legendary leaders.

Philip II spent his life building a powerhouse state and a united Greece. Alexander the Great took that machine and drove it to the ends of the known world. Let’s break down where their visions matched and where they drifted apart.

Note: For more detail on specific battles, see the chapter on "The major events of Alexander's career." For their personalities, see "The character and beliefs of Philip and Alexander."

Philip II’s Original Aims: Security and Leadership

When Philip II became king in 359 BC, Macedon was on the verge of collapse. His early aims were practical and focused on survival.

1. Survival and Macedonian Strength

Philip’s first aim was to secure his borders against neighbors like the Illyrians and Paeonians. He used diplomacy and military reorganisation (like creating the Macedonian phalanx) to make Macedon the strongest power in the region. He wanted a stable kingdom where the king was the absolute authority.

2. Hegemony over Greece

Philip didn't want to destroy the Greek city-states; he wanted to lead them. After the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), he established the League of Corinth. His aim was to be Hegemon (leader) of a united Greek force, ensuring peace in Greece so he could look East.

3. The "Panhellenic" Crusade against Persia

Philip’s final major aim was an invasion of the Persian Empire. This had two purposes:
• Revenge: To punish Persia for invading Greece 150 years earlier (the Persian Wars).
• Unity: To give the restless Greek city-states a common enemy to fight, keeping them from rebelling against him.

Key Takeaway: Philip’s aims were "Macedon-centric." He wanted a secure, powerful kingdom and a dominated Greece, with the Persian war acting as a tool to achieve this.

Alexander the Great’s Aims: From Avenger to World Ruler

Alexander began his reign by claiming he was simply fulfilling his father’s legacy. However, as he moved deeper into Asia, his aims appeared to shift significantly.

1. Continuity: The "Avenger" of Greece

At the start (c. 334 BC), Alexander’s aims were identical to Philip's. He presented himself as the leader of the League of Corinth, out to liberate the Greek cities of Asia Minor and burn the Persian palaces in revenge. According to Arrian, Alexander’s early actions were strictly about defeating Darius III and ending the Persian threat to Macedon.

2. Change: The Pursuit of "Empire" over "Revenge"

After the Battle of Issus and the fall of Tyre, Alexander’s aims changed. He was no longer just a Macedonian king punishing Persia; he wanted to be the King of Asia. He stopped acting like a Greek leader and began acting like a Great King.
• Did you know? When Darius offered Alexander a peace treaty giving him half the empire, Alexander refused. He wanted it all.

3. Change: The "Policy of Fusion"

This is the biggest point of change. Philip likely wanted to conquer territory for Macedonians to rule. Alexander, however, began to blend the two cultures.
• He adopted Persian dress.
• He integrated Persians into his army.
• He encouraged the Susa marriages, where Macedonian officers married Persian noblewomen.
• This "fusion" aimed to create a stable, multi-ethnic empire, which many of his Macedonian soldiers (and likely Philip, had he lived) would have hated.

4. Change: Divine Status and "Pothos"

Alexander’s aims became increasingly personal and divine. Arrian and Plutarch often mention Alexander’s pothos (an overwhelming longing or desire) to go further than anyone else. Unlike Philip, who was motivated by politics, Alexander was motivated by his belief that he was the son of Zeus-Ammon and a hero like Achilles.

Key Takeaway: Alexander started with Philip’s plan but expanded it into a global, multi-ethnic vision that moved far beyond Macedonian interests.

Summary Comparison: Change vs. Continuity

To help you in your essays, here is a quick guide to what stayed the same and what changed:

Points of Continuity (What stayed the same):

• Military Supremacy: Both kings aimed to have the most elite, unbeatable army in the world.
• The Persian Enemy: Both used the Persian Empire as the ultimate target to justify their power.
• Use of Diplomacy: Both used marriages as political tools (Philip had seven wives; Alexander married Roxane and later Persian princesses to secure alliances).
• Authoritarian Rule: Both aimed to be the absolute center of the court and government.

Points of Change (What was different):

• The Scope of Conquest: Philip wanted the coast of Asia Minor; Alexander wanted the Indus Valley and the edges of the world.
• Treatment of Conquered People: Philip likely intended to treat Persians as subjects; Alexander tried to make them partners (the Policy of Fusion).
• Relationship with Greece: Philip worked hard to maintain the League of Corinth; Alexander eventually bypassed it, issuing the Exiles' Decree which interfered directly in Greek city affairs.
• The "Living God" Idea: Philip was assassinated for (some say) acting too much like a god, but Alexander actively demanded proskynesis (ritual bowing) and claimed divine parentage.

What do the Sources say?

When writing about these aims, remember to mention your ancient sources:

• Diodorus Siculus (Book 16): Provides great detail on Philip’s strategic and political aims in Greece.
• Arrian: Generally presents Alexander as a brilliant general whose aim was to conquer and explore (focusing on his pothos).
• Plutarch: Focuses on Alexander’s character, suggesting his aim was to "civilize" the world and bring Greek culture to the "barbarians."
• Curtius Rufus: Often more critical, highlighting how Alexander’s aims became "corrupted" by Persian luxury and his desire for divine worship.

Quick Review: Common Mistakes to Avoid

Don't assume Alexander had a master plan from Day 1. Most historians believe his aims evolved as he won more battles. He probably didn't plan to go to India when he first crossed the Hellespont!

Don't forget the Macedonian Army. They represent continuity. Even when Alexander’s aims changed, the army often tried to pull him back to Philip’s original goal: defeating the enemy and going home with the loot (as seen in the Hyphasis and Opis mutinies).

Key Takeaway for Exams: In any essay on this topic, argue that while the methods (the army, diplomacy) showed continuity, the ultimate goals (world empire vs. local hegemony) showed a massive change between father and son.