What's really interesting is the lead up to Alexander which I shall try and judiciously edit for length.101 The Conquest of the East and the Formation of Hellenism
Soon after the Corinthian conference Philip was killed and the conquest of the east was undertaken by his son Alexander, who proved a brilliant general. The war began in 337 and ended in the conquest of all the Persian kingdom in the course of seven years. The large, but badly trained Persian army, consisting of men of different races, could not resist the well-organized and firmly welded Greek and Macedonian army.
Alexander became the ruler of a vast empire which consisted of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, besides Greece and Macedonia. After the death of Alexander this power ... ... ...
And next is the sub-chapter which begins with Alexander. Delicious, isn't it? One of the best examples ever of how social, political, and cultural aspects of a society can influence the interpretation of history. In this instance the misdirection and manipulation is very deliberate, for the above is from: History: A Textbook for the Middle Schools, by Academician N. M. Nikolsky. Published by the State Textbook Publishing House, Moscow – 1935 and printed in the Soviet Union.98: The Formation of a Monarchical Party and its Programs
…They began therefore in the middle of fourth century to search for a reliable armed defence against the ruined laboring masses. After their defeat the Spartans ceased to be the policemen of old. Moreover, in Sparta herself the impoverished Spartans, having little land, had risen against the owners of large estates, and this revolt was crushed by the aristocrats only with great difficulty and over a long period of time. The Greek slave-holders began to plan the establishment of a monarchic or royal government of all Greece, with some foreign king possessing a large and powerful army at its head.
There were other reasons besides a perpetual fear of revolution that made the slave-holders dream of a strong monarchical power. The trade in manufactured and agricultural goods began to meet with difficulties from the second half of the fourth century. The number of customers had noticeably diminished in Greece, as a result of great unemployment in the country and the lack of lands, while many pirates appeared on the sea after the wars, robbing the ships coming into port with goods.
The slave-holders believed that all these difficulties would be solved if all of Greece united under the rule of a powerful monarch. This ruler, the monarchists considered, would be able to secure order and defend private property in all city-states, annihilate the pirates, gather an army from all Greece and raise an offensive against the Persian kingdom. The army would have to consist of the unemployed and landless and thus the country would not only be purged of their presence, but they could be provided with land after the conquest of Persia.
"They will achieve well-being and we shall have peace," openly wrote one of the leaders of the monarchists.
In the middle of the fourth century, a monarchist party was formed among the slave-holders of all large trading cities. The philosophers and sages who "slept at the doors of the rich" as a contemporary proverb said, helped the monarchists. In their discourses with their disciples as well as in their works they criticized the Greek republican orders, especially coming down on "democracy" and praising monarchy.
Note: The greatest Greek philosopher, Aristotle, already known to us, proved monarchy to be the best form of state organization; it was only necessary for the king to be superior to his subjects, which, Aristotle added "was not always the case."
<Snipped part of 99: The Macedonian Power>
… At the same time he (Philip) came to an agreement with the monarchist parties of the Greek polises preparing public opinion of Greece for the acceptance of the Macedonian power in all the states.
100: The Union of Greece under Macedonian Rule.
About 340 years before our era, Philip started resolute action, supported by his Greek allies. He met with resistance only in Athens. A decisive battle took place in 338 in which the Athenians were ultimately beaten. After that the other Greek states recognized of their own free will Philip’s rule.
In agreement with his Greek adherents, Philip immediately after the conquest, convened a conference in Corinth of the delegates from all the Greek city-states. The delegates of Sparta alone failed to appear. The conference carried the decision of organizing an all-Greek federation which was to form a military league with Macedonia, choosing the Macedonian king as chief commander of all Greek and Macedonian military forces. Private property was declared inviolable in Greece, the political orders existing in Greece were to continue and all action against private property and existing governments was to be considered high treason.
To secure the execution of these decrees Philip placed Macedonian attachments in all the Greek towns. The slave-holders could now be satisfied. The conference finally resolved upon a war against the Persian king by the joint forces of Greece and Macedonia. This was a war for new markets and new lands.
Understandably, given its date and origins, the book is entirely focused on serfdom, slavery, and "class". Any parts of history which can't be used to illustrate such are condensed into as few lines as possible, hence the brief paragraph on Alexander. Sub-chapter headings for ancient Greece include: Class Struggle in the Seventh-Sixth Centuries; Class Struggle in Athens in the Sixth Century; The Beginning of Slave-Owning Economy; Production Based on Slavery in Greece; Athenia, a Slave State; The Athenian Slave Democracy, etc. As best as I can tell, the above rendition is based mostly on Isocrates Letter to Philip. Now, who knew he was helping an apparently ubiquitous "Monarchist Party", or that any and all problems (trust me on this) in Greece were caused by the "ruined laboring masses". And yet the book does retain just enough actual history to make its reasoning believable if - emphasis on the "if" - you didn't know otherwise. And some of its interpretation isn't totally out of line. I especially like the italicized parts - which are the publisher's italics, not mine - such as Philip preparing public opinion for the acceptance of Macedonian power. He did try his best to do this, by fair means or foul, although stating that the city states (other than Athens) recognized "of their own free will" his rule is stretching it a bit. (Understatement) And then there's This was a war for new markets and lands. I've often debated that this was the real reason for the conquests, although it was Alexander who wanted the new markets and lands for himself, not for Greece. Yeah, I know there are many who disagree.
Anyway … thought you might find this entertaining.
Best regards,
