Demosthenes' The Last Stand is the text I chose for this week because its title felt like I would read about a last epic battle that occurred during the rise of Phillipic reign. However, the truth of the text would turn out to be more low-spirited than I thought as you are presented with a weakened Athens. Throughout the weeks, we saw Athens and Athenian people as the centerfold in Greek culture, diplomacy, and battle. However, in this text, we see how Demosthenes witnessed Athenian people submitting to the Macedonian rule instead of standing up for their independence and freedom. As he highlights in the text, "What has caused the mischief? There must be some cause, some good reason, why the Greeks were so eager for liberty then, and now are eager for servitude. There was something men of Athens, something in the hearts of multitude them, which there is not now." The morale of Athenians had lowered compared to how great the city was when they went against the Spartans and other predecessors. Demosthenes tried his best to call this issue out but it seemed to have not worked as Alexander II would come to conquer Athens easily. This made the reading interesting as it made me wonder what could have caused such a great state to fall easily. Were the people of Athens truly over war and fighting or did the issues they faced in the past so severe that it affected them gradually throughout the years? In the end, it was clear that Greece would start to develop into a new era dominated by Macedonian rule.

I chose the reading of " The Beginning of Philip of Macedon Reign" due to the events that will preside after his death at the hands of treacherous bodyguard. The story of Alexander the great is known to many due his conquest what he was able to achieve in his 32-33 years of life before he passed. However, with the story of his father Philip the second we can start to comprehend the reasoning behind some of Alexander actions in wanting too surpass his father. Before Alexander it was Philip the second that turned Macedon into a military power. The introduction to the reading states, " Philip II of Macedon (reigned 359 to 336 BCE) took a faction-rent, semi-civilized country of quarrelsome landed nobles and boorish peasants, and made it into an invincible military power. The conquests of Alexander the Great would have been impossible without the military power bequeathed him by his almost equally great father." Full acknowledgement that Alexander conquest would not have been possible without the efforts from his father. The part of the reading that caught my interest was his battle tactics. The reading states, "  he attacked such of his enemies as seemed easiest to be subdue, in order that by a victory over them he might confirm the wavering courage of his soldiers, and alter any feelings of contempt which his foes might feel for him. His first conflict was with the Athenians [who sent a fleet to sustain one Manteias, a pretender to Philip’s throne] whom he surprised by a stratagem, but—-though he might have put them all to the sword—-he yet, from dread of a more formidable war, allowed them to depart—-uninjured, and without [even] a ransom." Philip battle tactics and care for his soldiers is showcased. This also indicates that Philip didn't see his soldiers as pawns that can be replaced but as valuable assets. I am curious to know if Alexander was ever able to admit or acknowledge the part his father and played during his conquest.

I chose Isocrates’ letter to Philip II of Macedon to write about. I’m interested in the debate surrounding Philip conceived the plan to unite the Hellenes and invade Persia, and the question of whether Isocrates influenced his decision to do it, so I thought I might as well read it. One passage that grabbed my attention was when Isocrates’ argued that it is only proper that one of the descendants of Heracles lead such an expedition, referring founding myth of the Argeads. I think Isocrates was trying to convince Philip that he was in a unique position as the strongest man in the Greek world and the war weariness of the poleis after fighting so many inconclusive wars versus each other to unite all of Hellas behind him. The passage shows how the mythological founding myths espoused by most poleis were used to foster, or appeal to a sense of shared Hellenic identity. From what I understand, not all Hellenes had as high opinion of Philip as Isocrates did, and many were not too fond of Philips newly found preeminence in the Greek world, so we should take him as an exception. I hope to learn more about what pieces of evidence we have for the debate surrounding Philip’s plan to invade Persia.  

The reading I picked this week was "The Murder of Philip II". I picked this reading because of how Philip having a lot of power eventually led to his downfall and what influenced the rise of Alexander the Great. One moment that jumped out to me when reading was when Pausanias would murder Philip because of having no reputation for Philip’s work which would get more than just him involved. Pausanias also complained about Philip’s injuries that he suffered. What the author is trying to communicate is the nature of gods in Ancient Greece. What this document tells us about Ancient Greece is how having so much power can lead to your downfall. This document relates to the Last Stand, which Philip was taking over Athens with his Macedonian rule. How these two documents relate to Philip is that he is a powerful god that is capable of anything. I would like to find out more about the real murderer of Philip. 

The reading I chose for this week is The Beginning of Philip of Macedon’s Reign. I chose this reading simply because I wanted to learn more about Philip after reading about him the textbook. The passage that stood out to me was the last passage. While besieging Methone, someone shot an arrow at him, striking out his eye; however, this incident did not “make him more resentful to his enemy”. On the contrary, when his enemy asked for peace, he mercifully did. I believe the author of this document is trying to communicate that even though Philip was known for his strong military, he was also known for wanting peace among his nation, making him a wise and great leader. His son, Alexander the Great would eventually follow in his footsteps. Overall, this document is telling us about the time in which Philip of Macedon came to be.

This week I read The Beginning of Philip of Macedon's Reign because it sounded interesting to read an account about Alexander the Great father's reign. The passage that stuck out to me was the mention of Philip holding no grudge against the town he was besieging that shot his eye out, he could have easily sought vengeance for this but rather than that he was merciful to the town. It highlights a softer side or more likely demonstrated how good of a ruler he was, he bore no ill will towards those he conquered. I feel the document was trying to build up the legacy of Philip, he is often overshadowed by his son Alexander the Great but if it wasn't for the efforts of Philip then Alexander would not have the foundation he built from. This document helps reinforce the idea that Philip was such a good leader that it was obvious he made Macedon he power that it was before his son made it an Empire. What I am interested in learning more about is what happened to Philip's nephew, the one he succeeded to the throne, the document treats them like a stepping stone to Philip becoming king.

The reading I picked was the first philippic by Demosthenes. The particular detail that jumped out at me is Demosthenes going into detail about what was Philip has already accomplished which is being able to  have control of Thessaly. What I think the author was trying to communicate is to convince the citizens of Athens during this speech to try to take matter into the their own hands to help save Athens before it it’s too late. The leadership within Athens were not acting or taking the threats of Philip seriously which seems to frightened the author throughout this speech. What I think the document was telling about the time and place it comes from is where we are seeing the effects of Athens is now past its prime and still in recovery and now have to deal with the issue of Philip. Philip was very convincing with what he was displaying across Greece which is diplomacy, military strength and also having alliances. In a way the leadership may have been reluctant to act against Philip as they may have thought it was better to support it rather that to possibly to be against him. 

The reading I pick for this week is The Beginning of Philip of Macedon’s Reign by Justin. The reason i picked this reading was because I found interesting how Phillip turns the destiny of Macedonia with his leadership skills and discipline. The detail in the passage that jumped out to me was when Phillip lost an eye at the siege of Methone. Despite him suffering such a severe injury, he stayed calm and kept going, also showed mercy to the defeated city. I think the author was trying to illustrate Phillips' great leadership skills and bravery by showing his resilience, his focus and the ability to lead despite something painful and personal happening to him. In my opinion, this document is telling us that Macedonia was an unstable and harsh place, but all it needed was a leader with vision, strength and that was willing to put in the work to make it prosper. This supports our previous lessons as Phillip shows the qualities of a true Greek. His determination to thrive, become better and bring Macedonia to glory, is what means to be Greek. I would like to know more about Phillip teachings to his son Alexander the Great and if he was influenced by his father. 

I picked The Last Stand. There was no reason for choosing this reading. The passage that jumped out at me was the reading of Philip II and Macedonian Supremacy, The Aftermath of the Peace of Philocrates. “Philip’s treatment of Phocis, moreover, not only angered and embarrassed the Athenians; it cast doubt on the credibility of the ambassadors such as Philocrates and the orator Aechines, and ally of Eubulus.” The Athenians wanted to control themselves and felt they were punishing each other. They only wanted the government to be better to see changes and adjust around them. The author was trying to communicate that Athenians were getting irritated with Philip's rules because they needed more than what Philip did for them. It was a little messy and out of control among the people. In my opinion, this document tells us about the time and place it comes from and that the government rules were not working well for society. The people were demanding government rulers move fast and make some changes to the way they ruled Athenia. This document supports our reading about this time and place. I would like to find out more about how the government will do better to satisfy its citizens' needs.  

The reading that I picked this week was The beginning of Phillip of Macedon's reign by Justin. The reason I chose this reading was because of the interest it sparked on me during the class lecture. The passage that jumped out for me was However, he attacked such of his enemies as seemed easiest to be subdue, in order that by a victory over them he might confirm the wavering courage of his soldiers and alter any feelings of contempt which his foes might feel for him. His first conflict was with the Athenians [who sent a fleet to sustain one Manteias, a pretender to Philip’s throne] whom he surprised by a stratagem, but—-though he might have put them all to the sword—-he yet, from dread of a more formidable war, allowed them to depart—-uninjured, and without [even] a ransom. Later, leading his army against the Illyrians he slew several thousand of his enemies and took the famous city of Larissa. He then fell suddenly upon Thessaly (when it was fearful of anything but a war) —-not from a desire of spoil but because he wished to add the strength of the Thessalian cavalry to his own troops; and he thus incorporated a force of horse and foot in one invincible army" The author describes Phillip as a very savvy strategos and leader who knows when to be magnanimous and when to be ruthless. A man who profited from a good education and the knowledge of military warfare during his time as a hostage. This document tells us about the tumultuous context in which Phillip grew up. This was an environment of treachery and murder, and he managed to more than just survive.

The reading that I picked was The Beginning of Philip of Macedon’s Reign by Justin. The reason this reading interested me was because it went into detail on how Phillip of Macedon took charge. The detail in particular that jumped out to me is how King Philip was not more resentful when his eye was struck out. The enemies needed peace and Philip was more merciful to the conquered. The author was trying to communicate the diplomatic nature of King Phillips reign. This document is telling us that during 359 to 336 BCE Phillip of Macedon ruled in a way that allowed him to make peace with others. This document seems to contradict other readings about Greek societies that didn't have Kings. The other Greek cultures had the power spread out amongst the people. There were democracies and also oligarchies. Macedon makes use of Kings for rulership. I would like to find out more about how Alexander The Great impacted the world after his father King Phillip II.

Philip II was a man embarking on a quest though unfathomable, to be the king of Greece of to set up his son Alexander II to do so. Between all of this Philip II has to leave his kingdom to campaign and leves his son, 16 year old, Alexander II to run the kingdom of Macedonia . Philip II had his own tensions and issues upon marrying his 4th wife , Cleopatra and their son which could be a threat to Alexander II's stake to the throne. So, there were those who possibly could benefit an Philip II assassination. In supreme irony, Pausanias, a Philip II bodyguard, kills Philip II. How and why seem shallow. A percieved slight or insult directed at Pausanias and not properly aqcknowleded or address by Philip II leads to Pausanias murdering Philip II. It seems very light of a motive to commit such an large scale act. Yet, this is where we are left. Just wondering who perhaps really was this assassination.