‘Alexander and Philip shared many of the same aims.’ How far do you agree with this view?
Philip and Alexander seem to have largely held similar aims across their lives, though the ways in
which they carried out these aims differed based on their respective situations and personalities.
Overall, they shared broad military, cultural, economic and political aims, though Alexander may be
said to have also held the key aim of exploration.
Both Alexander and Philip shared the key ultimate aim of expansion. While Alexander most
obviously achieved this aim through the conquest of Persia and continued expansion as far as India,
Philip also expanded the power and influence of Macedon by conquering cities in Greece,
culminating with his victory at the battle of Chaeronea in 338BC. This demonstrates the core
similarities in their aims, though Alexander was able to carry out conquest on a much grander scale
due to the position Philip left Macedon in upon his death. The description of the battle of Chaeronea
provided by Diodorus provides evidence of Philip and Alexander fighting alongside each other for
this ultimate aim of conquest, though with slightly different motivations – he suggests Alexander is
focused on self-promotion. However, one could point out that Diodorus, who was writing in the first
century BC and is very much a secondary source, had no way of seeing into the private motivations
of Philip or Alexander. His comments on Alexander are likely skewed to highlight the valour and
morality of Philip as a contrast, as he has a very pro-Philip perspective. Therefore, we may infer that
the aims of Philip and Alexander were likely the same here: to gain victory and secure the position of
Macedon as head of Greece. The key military aim of conquest was thus shared between the two
kings, with their ambition being seemingly limitless.
Furthermore, they also both shared a broad aim of cultural change for Macedonians. A priority for
Philip was helping Macedon to be accepted as ‘Greek’ by adopting various aspects of Greek culture.
This is clearly evident through Philip’s gold coin of c. 340BC; it depicted the head of Apollo on one
side, with a chariot in a race (possibly at the Olympic games) on the other. Through his use of Greek
religion and Greek traditional games, it is clear that a key aim of Philip’s propaganda was to cement
himself, and Macedon, as Greek. Similarly, Alexander wanted to combine Greek and Persian culture
as a way of making his rule more acceptable for Persia. This is seen through Arrian’s report of
Alexander arranging a series of marriages between his men and Persian women in 324 BC at Susa.
This is likely to be an accurate description of events as Arrian writes a history based on the work of
contemporary authors; however, there is again no way of knowing what Alexander’s true aims
behind this were. Nevertheless, other actions of Alexander which are described by both Arrian and
Plutarch – such as his adoption of some Persian customs and dress – suggest he appreciated parts of
Persian culture or at least wanted to introduce them into his circle. Therefore, though the cultural
aspects that each king wanted to adopt were starkly different, the ultimate aim of trying to
introduce a change in culture to create more acceptance for Macedon was shared between them.
Philip and Alexander also shared some economic aims. They both utilised their conquest to gain
funds, and were then able to use the wealth they amassed to fund their wars and secure the loyalty
of their troops. Diodorus suggests that Philip seized Crenides to transform its mines and thereby
increase his wealth. This illustrates his aim to procure funds for the war, and his effective use of
natural resources in places he controlled. Alexander also procured funds through looting cities.
These included Susa and Persepolis in Persia - the scale of wealth here was much grander than what
Philip had access to. Quintus Curtius Rufus describes the unruly Macedonians fighting over the
abundance of loot to be found in Persepolis, whereas Arrian describes Alexander as managing
wealth effectively and sending it away for safekeeping. Arrian may be seen as more reliable here due
to his use of contemporary authors, where Rufus may have changed events to fit his narrative of
Philip and Alexander seem to have largely held similar aims across their lives, though the ways in
which they carried out these aims differed based on their respective situations and personalities.
Overall, they shared broad military, cultural, economic and political aims, though Alexander may be
said to have also held the key aim of exploration.
Both Alexander and Philip shared the key ultimate aim of expansion. While Alexander most
obviously achieved this aim through the conquest of Persia and continued expansion as far as India,
Philip also expanded the power and influence of Macedon by conquering cities in Greece,
culminating with his victory at the battle of Chaeronea in 338BC. This demonstrates the core
similarities in their aims, though Alexander was able to carry out conquest on a much grander scale
due to the position Philip left Macedon in upon his death. The description of the battle of Chaeronea
provided by Diodorus provides evidence of Philip and Alexander fighting alongside each other for
this ultimate aim of conquest, though with slightly different motivations – he suggests Alexander is
focused on self-promotion. However, one could point out that Diodorus, who was writing in the first
century BC and is very much a secondary source, had no way of seeing into the private motivations
of Philip or Alexander. His comments on Alexander are likely skewed to highlight the valour and
morality of Philip as a contrast, as he has a very pro-Philip perspective. Therefore, we may infer that
the aims of Philip and Alexander were likely the same here: to gain victory and secure the position of
Macedon as head of Greece. The key military aim of conquest was thus shared between the two
kings, with their ambition being seemingly limitless.
Furthermore, they also both shared a broad aim of cultural change for Macedonians. A priority for
Philip was helping Macedon to be accepted as ‘Greek’ by adopting various aspects of Greek culture.
This is clearly evident through Philip’s gold coin of c. 340BC; it depicted the head of Apollo on one
side, with a chariot in a race (possibly at the Olympic games) on the other. Through his use of Greek
religion and Greek traditional games, it is clear that a key aim of Philip’s propaganda was to cement
himself, and Macedon, as Greek. Similarly, Alexander wanted to combine Greek and Persian culture
as a way of making his rule more acceptable for Persia. This is seen through Arrian’s report of
Alexander arranging a series of marriages between his men and Persian women in 324 BC at Susa.
This is likely to be an accurate description of events as Arrian writes a history based on the work of
contemporary authors; however, there is again no way of knowing what Alexander’s true aims
behind this were. Nevertheless, other actions of Alexander which are described by both Arrian and
Plutarch – such as his adoption of some Persian customs and dress – suggest he appreciated parts of
Persian culture or at least wanted to introduce them into his circle. Therefore, though the cultural
aspects that each king wanted to adopt were starkly different, the ultimate aim of trying to
introduce a change in culture to create more acceptance for Macedon was shared between them.
Philip and Alexander also shared some economic aims. They both utilised their conquest to gain
funds, and were then able to use the wealth they amassed to fund their wars and secure the loyalty
of their troops. Diodorus suggests that Philip seized Crenides to transform its mines and thereby
increase his wealth. This illustrates his aim to procure funds for the war, and his effective use of
natural resources in places he controlled. Alexander also procured funds through looting cities.
These included Susa and Persepolis in Persia - the scale of wealth here was much grander than what
Philip had access to. Quintus Curtius Rufus describes the unruly Macedonians fighting over the
abundance of loot to be found in Persepolis, whereas Arrian describes Alexander as managing
wealth effectively and sending it away for safekeeping. Arrian may be seen as more reliable here due
to his use of contemporary authors, where Rufus may have changed events to fit his narrative of
