pothos.org

Hello all,Why did Philip NOT include Macedonia in the Pan-Hellene League?later Nicator

You mean the League of Corinth? The one he established after Chaironeia?If so, then he did -- as hegemon. While most poleis signed treaties BY polis, the Macedonians historically did not. Treaties made with Macedon were treaties made with the *king*, and the rest of the Argead clan. The way that treaties are handled is that the king is named as himself, followed by the name of his heir apparent and the other (living and important) members of the Argead royal house. We see the same pattern back to the Peloponnesian War with Perdikkas II, etc. So Macedonia is included in that treaty under the name of Philip and the Argeads. :-)Dr. Jeanne

Hi Jeanne,Surely, therefore, the point is that Macedonia was *not* included in the League. Philip (and/or) his heirs were members of the League and they could draw upon whatever forces happened to be at their disposal - whether the kingdom over which the hegemon ruled was larger or smaller than it was at the time the League was formed. This meant that Philip (or Alexander, as it turned out) could in theory draw upon the armed forces of any territory that he conquered, and they would be, de facto, members.All the bestMarcus

Problem is this isn't a single case. This is a pattern for how the Macedonian king handled treaty -- whoever the king and whatever the treaty. I think it's probably safer to say that, to their minds, the king WAS Macedon (which is separate from Macedonia). :-)Jeanne

Surely it is more that the Macedonian King was the only Macedonian with the right to make treaties; civil power resided in him and him alone; the Assembly only having limited rights like jurisdiction in treason cases. Whereas South of the border the states were run by elected representatives who acted for a short time in the name of their fellow citizens thus making the citizens the important factor and not the individual archon etc.