The Assasination of Philip II of Macedon

As an excuse for some political propaganda analysis, which is ofc in itself more political propaganda, if honest at that.

Philip II of Macedon was the dad of Alexander “The Great” and a major, if less viral, influencer of history. He took over a small kingdom on the verge of collapse and transformed it into a major regional power, with perhaps the strongest military the world had yet seen and a huge host of vassal “allies”. A powerbase used by his son to gain a massive empire, including much of the classical world. Then the world became Greece and Rome and shit.

I will not go into a detailed account of Philip’s life and exploits. Those are available in many flavors to choose from. Ancient and modern alike, moderate and opinionated. Where I want to focus is his assassination, using it as an example of how history gets distorted, simplified or interpreted in politically dishonest ways to serve various agendas. In this case: Greek national pride, Western imperialist / supremacist narratives, hero worship, pro-Statist / Globalist thought and even “elite” feminism. Just wait for it.

Philip II translates from history as a rare military and political mastermind. A prince rather low in the line of succession, he was sent as hostage to Illyria and then Thebes during his youth, where he was able to witness the military might of Bardylis and then, perhaps most influentially, the geopolitical, strategic and major tactical innovations of Pelopidas and Epaminondas.

Back in Macedon he soon acquired the throne and salvaged the collapsing petty kingdom, crushing many internal and external threats to his power, including the powerful Bardylis. Went on to play pretty much the entirety of Greek and Thracian states against each other, including some dwarfing Macedon at its previous strongest (and before Philip’s mid to later reign). Other Macedonian-related petty kings were fully subdued and the largely rural populace was rapidly integrated into a disciplined war machine; one that included the famed pike phalanx, heavy shock cavalry, specialist corps and major advances in artillery and logistics. Philip was also a collector of foreign servants, most famous among them being Aristotle. Capturing and exploiting several gold and silver mines made the whole thing financially possible.

Within 23 years he had “allied” or annexed most of the Balkans, landed a force in Asia Minor and was about to launch a full-scale invasion of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Then he was murdered in 336 BC aged 46, during the marriage of his daughter to the king of Epirus, in front of his guests and foreign delegates.

For yet another time in history we come across the “lone gunman” narrative, at least in some versions of the story, curiously including by Aristotle. It was Pausanias, one of Philip’s bodyguards, who stabbed the king during the ceremony. He then was captured and killed while trying to escape. We even have a motive for the act. Pausanias, likely also one of Philip’s male lovers, is said to have sought revenge since Philip refused to punish Attalos, a Macedonian general who had his henchmen gang-rape Pausanias. There are simpler versions and the full story is even crazier, but the point is that Pausanias is generally considered to have had a personal grudge against Philip.

However, most people reading on the era have noticed that there’s plenty who would have wanted Philip gone. Pausanias must have been a useful pawn in some bigger plot due to his grudge, or the grudge might even be a part of a cover up story. The assassin’s murder soon after the act - instead of an interrogation - raises further suspicions. Even professional (mercenary) historians theorize on what really happened, but the vast majority won’t go the full way.

The known possible plotting parties are many. Then there’s the chance that several of them conspired together. I’ll list them bellow in the order I consider most likely, being quite contrarian at that.

Alexander

Most claim that this makes little or no sense, being the main heir and all. What I see is weak attempts to exclude the “great” Greek and Western and Globalist hero, to save his “good” name and propaganda value.

Alex had fallen off with Alexdad several times. Got insulted, almost killed by Philip, fled to exile. He had already plotted against him in several ways and feared failing to succeed him, especially when Philip got a son by a “true Macedonian” wife, the niece of one general Attalos mentioned earlier.

Olympias, Alexander’s Epirot mother, was long at odds with Philip and by now in exile back in Epirus. Olympias and Alex were close to each other. Some of his friends were exiled too for a while, and three of his friends were the bodyguards who preferred to kill Pausanias on the spot instead of arresting him. Makes a lot of sense that Pausanias was promised help to escape, was betrayed and then recorded as having accidentally fallen down, then instantly killed ‘to avenge the king’.

Alex went on to kill many of his own friends and generals during his reign. Destroyed several cities and tribal settlements, usually not even sparing the civilian population from death or slavery. In a pattern that comes off as politically calculated ruthlessness, despite the usual claims to the contrary. But even as a supposed half-lunatic or one with rage outbursts, and for sure The Megalomaniac, he seems like quite the candidate to grab a throne and steal the glory of conquest in place of his rival-father. The Argead dynasty of Macedon already had a proud tradition of cutthroat kings and princes, including Philip himself.

Olympias

With Alexander co-involved, or in support of his rise, Olympias too had plenty of motive and probably quite the personality for such deeds. Some modern “feminist/ally” historians - always looking for powerful female rolemodels - tend to desire excluding her, but by reading her history I think the word schemer clearly comes to mind.

Even if we go by the “ancient sources biased against women” narrative, there’s no way to prove she was of an opposite character, and after all it’s those sources that make her appear “strong”. People gotta choose, you can’t be both a power-hungry person and a good example. Unless you want hell on earth, idiots.

The Persians

With Philip about to campaign eastwards, the Persians would be eager to see him gone. Alex blamed Persian king Darius III as the head of the conspiracy that resulted in Philip’s death, though Darius had just gained the throne in a Persia in turmoil.

An important note that always gets sidelined: The Persian court eunuch Bagoas had two kings and several princes murdered between 338-336 BC, destabilizing the Achaemenid Empire right before the Macedonian expedition. He even tried to poison Darius III but failed.

Could Bagoas be Philip’s agent? A two-way murder spree? Who are the good guys?

The Athenians (and other forced-allies)

Athens was one of the main antagonists of Philip and suffered great loses and a practically vassal status. Many Athenians still wanted to fight back, and there’s plenty of times where they’ve been recorded as intriguing abroad. In recent years, chiefly among them Plato and especially some of his students.

When Philip died, the Athenians revolted, together with the Thebans, Thracians and Illyrians; those are also among the somewhat suspect subjects. Soon after, the fiercely defiant Thebans were made an example of by Alex, annihilated to scare the rest of Greece.

Minor Claimants and other Macedonian Nobles

None of them appear powerful or well positioned enough to gain much. But due to the Macedonian court mess or rebellious tendencies among recently vassalized nobles, they can’t be excluded. Some were even put to death by Alexander, accused of being involved in the assasination. Mr DaGreat and/or his mom also had Attalos, his niece and her children with Philip killed.

The Spartans

The Spartans were not that known (yet) for extremely cutthroat politics, especially abroad. But they had their share, I’d say obviously more than recorded. Diplomatically isolated by Philip and his minions, they’d enjoy chaos to their north to strengthen their position. A couple of years later we find them cooperating with Persia against Alexander.

By 336 BC every orange/yellow-ish region and much of the uncolored and further north is practically under Philip. His advance force has landed east of Lesbos.

In the end we can’t know who had Pausanias kill Philip, but we can sure learn some about the biases, goals, paychecks and character of ancient and - even more so - modern theorists. When reality is strange, I tend to go by the likeliest well informed explanation, without pretending to be sure. So I’d say Alex and Alexmom were the keymost conspirators in removing Alexdad, even though most Neo-Greeks and Westerners and Globalists would prefer other interpretations.

For more recent events we can often have a decent idea on what happened, if we dare search enough. Guessing or having real proof, I certainly don't appreciate being mocked or censored or worse, by the ignorant or the lackey. Matters can often be seen more clearly when in lack of state (and/or globocorp) granted related credentials; those tend to result in intellectual cowardice or monetized complicity in spreading lies.