§-Syllabus dot point

NSWAncient HistorySyllabus dot point

How did Philip II transform Macedon from a weak border kingdom into the master of Greece between 359 and 338 BC?

The rise of Macedon and Philip II, the weakness of the kingdom before 359 BC, Philip's accession and his reform of the army into the sarissa phalanx and Companion cavalry, the seizure of the Thracian mines that funded his rise, and his expansion into Thessaly, the Chalcidice and central Greece down to 338 BC

A focused answer to the HSC Ancient History period on the rise of Macedon and Philip II from 359 to 338 BC, covering the weak kingdom Philip inherited, his sarissa phalanx and Companion cavalry, the Thracian gold of Pangaeum, the fall of Olynthus in 348 BC, and his mastery of central Greece through the Third Sacred War.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.813 min answerUpdated 2026-07-01

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

Between 359 and 338 BC Philip II turned Macedon from a weak, disunited and threatened border kingdom into the master of Greece. Inheriting a state that had just lost its king and army to the Illyrians, he secured the frontiers (defeating Bardylis in 358 BC), then rebuilt the army around the sarissa phalanx, the Companion cavalry, a siege train and year-round professional drill (Diodorus, Book 16). He funded it by seizing Amphipolis (357 BC) and the gold and silver of the Pangaeum region, founding Philippi (356 BC), and used that wealth for both his standing army and lavish bribery. He then expanded into Thessaly (winning the Crocus Field, c. 353 BC), destroyed Olynthus in the Chalcidice (348 BC), and mastered central Greece through the Third Sacred War, entering the Amphictyonic League by the Peace of Philocrates (346 BC). His method was the fusion of force, money and diplomacy, summed up in the saying about the gold-laden ass. Our sources (Diodorus, the hostile Demosthenes, the idealising Isocrates, the later Justin) are none of them both contemporary and neutral, and modern historians debate how far the rise was Philip's personal genius (Hammond, Worthington) and how far it exploited a divided Greece (Cawkwell). The advance ended at Chaeronea in 338 BC, the subject of the next dot point.

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
How to read a source on this topic
Historians and interpretations

What this dot point is asking

This part of the period Greece from 404 BC to the death of Philip II asks you to explain one of the great transformations of Greek history: how the kingdom of Macedon, a weak and disunited state on the northern fringe of the Greek world, became in a single generation the master of Greece. The focus is Philip II (reigned 359 to 336 BC): the crisis he inherited, his reform of the army into the sarissa phalanx and the Companion cavalry, his seizure of the Thracian gold and silver mines that funded everything else, and his steady expansion into Thessaly, the Chalcidice and central Greece down to 338 BC. You are being asked to write narrative-analytical history, causation and significance, not just a list of Philip's campaigns. Above all, you must explain HOW Philip rose: by welding a professional army to enormous wealth and a ruthless diplomacy of alliance and bribery.

The answer

Macedon before Philip: weak, disunited and threatened

For most of its earlier history Macedon was a marginal power. It was a personal monarchy under the Argead royal house, not a polis; its people spoke a form of Greek but were often dismissed as half-barbarian by the southern cities. Royal authority was fragile, resting on the loyalty of quarrelsome nobles and the semi-independent chieftains of Upper Macedonia, and the throne had repeatedly changed hands by murder and civil war. The kingdom was hemmed in by aggressive neighbours: Illyrians and Paeonians to the west and north, Thracians to the east, and the Greek states, above all Athens, interfering along the coast. When Philip took power in 359 BC the crisis was at its worst: his brother King Perdiccas III and a reported 4,000 Macedonians had just been killed by the Illyrians under Bardylis, and two rival claimants (Argaeus, backed by Athens, and Pausanias, backed by a Thracian ruler) threatened the throne. Macedon looked ready to collapse.

Philip's accession and the securing of the frontiers

Philip met the emergency with speed and guile. He bought off the Paeonians and Thracians with gifts, saw off the pretenders (Athens' candidate Argaeus was defeated), and then turned on the Illyrians, crushing Bardylis in 358 BC. These first moves already show his method: use money and diplomacy to isolate a threat, then destroy it in the field. Securing the frontiers bought him the breathing space to do the thing that mattered most, rebuild the army into an instrument no Greek state could match.

The military revolution

Diodorus (Book 16) and later writers credit Philip with re-making the Macedonian army from the ground up. He re-armed the infantry, the "foot companions" (pezhetairoi), with the sarissa, a pike some four to six metres long, and drilled them in a deep, dense phalanx whose hedge of iron points could pin and hold any enemy line. Alongside this he developed the elite Companion cavalry (the hetairoi) as a shock strike force, so that the phalanx fixed the enemy while the cavalry delivered the decisive charge, the tactic often summarised as "hammer and anvil." He added the hypaspists (a more mobile elite infantry), light troops and, crucially, a corps of siege engineers able to take walled cities by assault rather than slow starvation. Most important of all, this was a standing, paid, professional national army, drilled year-round and loyal to the king, not a seasonal citizen militia. It was the finest fighting force of the age, and it was the instrument Alexander would inherit.

Money and expansion: the Thracian mines

An army like this had to be paid for, and here Philip's expansion and his finances reinforced each other. In 357 BC he seized Amphipolis, the key city commanding the Thracian coast, and pressed on to secure the gold and silver of the Pangaeum region, re-founding the town of Crenides as Philippi in 356 BC. Diodorus reports the mines yielded on the order of 1,000 talents a year (an illustrative ancient figure, but an enormous revenue by fourth-century standards). This bullion, and the gold coinage Philip struck from it, paid for the standing army and the siege train, hired mercenaries and engineers, and funded the lavish bribery of politicians inside rival cities. Money bought conquests, conquests brought more revenue, and gold opened gates that arms alone might not, a compounding cycle at the heart of Macedon's rise.

Thessaly, the Chalcidice and the fall of Olynthus

With frontiers secure and treasury full, Philip expanded outward on every side. Drawn into Thessaly through the Third Sacred War, he shattered the Phocian general Onomarchus at the Battle of the Crocus Field (c. 353 BC) and was made archon of the Thessalian League, gaining its excellent cavalry, its revenues and a foothold in central Greece. To his south-east lay the Chalcidice and its leading city, Olynthus, head of the Chalcidian League. When Olynthus, alarmed by his growth, allied with Athens, Philip besieged and destroyed it in 348 BC, reportedly with the help of traitors bribed within the walls, and sold its people into slavery, a brutal warning to any city that resisted him. Demosthenes' three Olynthiac speeches, urging Athens to save the city, are our vivid hostile witness to these events.

Central Greece, the Amphictyonic League and the road to 338 BC

By the Peace of Philocrates in 346 BC Philip ended the Third Sacred War on his own terms. His reward was decisive: admitted to the Amphictyonic League (the ancient religious body that guarded Delphi), he took the two Council votes stripped from defeated Phocis and presided over the Pythian Games of 346 BC. For the first time a Macedonian king held a recognised religious and diplomatic standing at the very centre of Greek affairs. Through the later 340s Philip kept up the pressure, combining campaigns in Thrace and the north with the diplomacy and bribery that the saying about the gold-laden ass sums up, "no fortress is impregnable to whose walls an ass laden with gold can climb" (a line credited to Philip only by much later writers). Step by step he advanced towards the domination of Greece, until in 338 BC the reckoning came at Chaeronea, the battle that is the subject of the next dot point.

How to read a source on this topic

Sources for the rise of Macedon will typically describe (never reproduce verbatim) a passage of Diodorus' narrative, an extract in the hostile manner of Demosthenes' Philippics or Olynthiacs, a moralising snippet from Justin, or a document such as a treaty or a decree of the Amphictyonic League. Three reading habits will keep you safe.

First, fix the type and date of the evidence. Distinguish ancient WRITTEN sources (Diodorus, Demosthenes, Justin, the lost Theopompus, Isocrates) from ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence (coins such as Philip's gold "Philippei", the mines and fortifications, the royal tombs at Vergina/Aegae). Note that Diodorus and Justin wrote centuries after Philip and depend on earlier, now-lost writers, while Demosthenes and Isocrates are contemporaries with strong agendas.

Second, weigh perspective and purpose. Demosthenes is a political enemy trying to frighten Athens into resisting Philip, so his speeches magnify Philip's bribery and Athenian complacency; Isocrates is a panhellenist who idealises Philip as the leader who will unite Greece against Persia. Neither is neutral, and their bias is itself useful evidence for how contemporaries saw Philip.

Third, always move from content to reliability to usefulness to perspective, and reach a judgement, rather than simply retelling the source. On this topic that usually means testing hostile oratory against the narrative of Diodorus and against the material record of coins and mines.

Historians and interpretations

Ancient. Our main narrative is Diodorus Siculus, whose Bibliotheke Book 16 covers Philip's reign (first century BC, drawing on earlier lost historians). The contemporary Athenian orator Demosthenes gives a vivid hostile view in the Philippics and Olynthiacs, while the panhellenist Isocrates (in his Philip) idealises him. Justin's later epitome of Pompeius Trogus preserves further material but is brief and moralising, and the important contemporary Theopompus, whose Philippica was hostile and censorious, survives only in fragments. No single narrative is both contemporary and neutral.

Modern. N.G.L. Hammond, the great historian of Macedon, credited Philip with a genuine military and administrative revolution and rated him as important as his more famous son. Ian Worthington emphasises Philip the calculating diplomat and statesman, arguing that his fusion of force, wealth and diplomacy, not battle alone, explains his success. G.L. Cawkwell, studying Demosthenes and Philip, stressed how far Philip profited from the disunity and war-weariness of the Greek states. Used together, these historians frame the central debate: how much of Macedon's rise was Philip's personal genius, and how much the opportunity handed him by a divided Greece.

Model responses

1. Source-analysis response (using a described passage of Demosthenes). "A passage in the manner of Demosthenes' Olynthiacs is valuable as CONTEMPORARY evidence, since Demosthenes was an Athenian statesman writing during Philip's rise, and it captures how Philip's growth alarmed Athens and how far he used bribery to divide his enemies. Its USEFULNESS is limited, however, by its clear PERSPECTIVE: this is hostile political oratory intended to frighten Athens into action, so it magnifies Philip's cunning and Athenian complacency and cannot be taken as neutral report. It is most reliable as evidence for Athenian fears and for the diplomatic dimension of Philip's expansion, and should be tested against Diodorus' narrative and the material record of the mines and coinage before it is trusted on detail."

Marker's note: markers reward identifying the source as contemporary but hostile oratory, an explicit usefulness/perspective split, and corroboration against Diodorus rather than description alone.

2. Extended-response paragraph (why Philip succeeded where others failed). "What set Philip apart from earlier Greek hegemons was that he combined instruments they had used only singly. Sparta and Thebes had each won a dominant army, and Athens had commanded wealth, but none had welded a professional standing army, a secure source of bullion and a systematic diplomacy into one method. Philip's re-armed phalanx and Companion cavalry (Diodorus, Book 16) gave him unmatched force; the Pangaeum mines and Philippi (356 BC) gave him the money to keep that army in the field all year and to bribe his rivals; and alliances, marriages and gold divided the Greek states before they could unite. As Worthington argues, it was this fusion, not any single battle, that carried Philip from the near-collapse of 359 BC to the mastery of Greece by 338 BC."

Marker's note: this paragraph scores because it argues a thesis (the fusion of instruments), grounds it in dated evidence, and uses a named historian to build the case rather than as decoration.

Command words and how to use a source

Outline/describe wants a small number of clearly separated points; explain wants a point, evidence and why it matters; assess/evaluate/to what extent wants a sustained argument reaching a supported judgement, and for a period option that usually means weighing causes against one another.

Using a source properly means four things every time: (1) content, what does it actually say; (2) reliability, who produced it, when, and for what purpose; (3) usefulness, what specific question can it answer, and how far; (4) perspective, whose viewpoint is it, and what does it leave out. For this topic always state whether a source is contemporary (Demosthenes, Isocrates) or a much later narrative (Diodorus, Justin), and whether it is hostile, idealising or neutral, since that usually decides its value.

Weaving in historiography means using a named position to build your argument, for example "as Cawkwell argues, Philip's success owed as much to Greek disunity as to his own gifts," used to qualify a specific claim rather than dropped in as a label.

Common exam traps

Chronicling the campaigns instead of analysing the rise: The question is almost always HOW and WHY Macedon rose, causation and significance. A blow-by-blow narrative of every siege, with no argument about army, money and diplomacy, will not score in the top bands.
Crediting the army alone: The sarissa phalanx matters, but Philip's mastery of Greece came from fusing the army with the wealth of the mines and with ruthless diplomacy and bribery. Strong answers weigh all three.
Taking Demosthenes at face value: The Philippics and Olynthiacs are brilliant but hostile oratory designed to rouse Athens. Treat them as evidence for Athenian fears and for Philip's methods, not as neutral fact, and test them against Diodorus.
Confusing Philip's work with Alexander's: The professional army, the Companion cavalry and the united, dominated Greece that made the Persian expedition possible were Philip's achievement. Give Philip his due before the story reaches Alexander.

Practice questions

Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.

foundation4 marksOutline the difficulties facing the kingdom of Macedon when Philip II came to power in 359 BC.

Show worked solution →

A 4-mark "outline" needs several correct, separated points with brief development.

A military catastrophe: Philip took power in 359 BC after his brother, King Perdiccas III, and reportedly some 4,000 Macedonians had been killed in battle against the Illyrians under Bardylis, leaving the army shattered and the kingdom open to invasion (1-2 marks).
Enemies on every frontier: Macedon was pressed by the Illyrians and Paeonians from the west and north, while the Thracians and the Greek city of Athens each backed a rival claimant to the throne (Pausanias and Argaeus), so Philip faced civil war as well as foreign attack (1 mark).
A weak and disunited state: The Argead monarchy depended on the loyalty of fractious nobles and the semi-independent chieftains of Upper Macedonia; royal authority was fragile and the throne had changed hands violently for a generation (1 mark).
The result: Philip first bought off or defeated these threats one by one (defeating Bardylis in 358 BC), buying the time to rebuild, which is the platform for everything that follows (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward concrete detail (the defeat by Bardylis, rival claimants backed by Athens and Thrace), not a vague statement that Macedon was "weak."

foundation5 marksSource A (an ExamExplained reconstruction, illustrative only, not a translated original): a passage in the hostile, warning manner of Athenian political oratory of this period declares that while the Athenians debate and delay, the Macedonian king is always in motion, that he takes cities by gold as much as by arms, and that no wall is safe once a mule laden with silver can climb to it. Using Source A and your own knowledge, explain what it reveals about how Philip II expanded his power.

Show worked solution →

A 5-mark "explain" using a source needs the source's content, its perspective, and supporting own knowledge.

What the source shows: Source A presents Philip as tireless and quick, contrasting Macedonian energy with Athenian delay, and stresses that he expanded by bribery as much as by battle, the point captured in the saying that no fortress is safe once a gold-laden animal can reach its walls (2 marks).
Its perspective: The passage is written from a hostile Athenian viewpoint, in the manner of Demosthenes' Philippics and Olynthiacs, so it is designed to alarm and to spur Athens to act; it exaggerates for effect and must be treated as persuasion, not neutral report (1 mark).
Own knowledge: The picture is broadly borne out: Philip combined a reformed professional army with lavish bribery of politicians inside rival cities, and traitors are said to have opened the gates of Olynthus to him in 348 BC. His speed, funded by the Thracian mines, repeatedly caught slower Greek states unprepared (2 marks).

Marker's note: markers reward reading the source's bias (hostile Athenian oratory) as well as its content, and corroborating it with specific events such as the fall of Olynthus.

foundation4 marksOutline the main military reforms by which Philip II transformed the Macedonian army.

Show worked solution →

A 4-mark "outline" needs the key reforms and how each strengthened the army.

The sarissa phalanx: Philip re-armed the infantry (the pezhetairoi, or "foot companions") with the sarissa, a pike some four to six metres long, and drilled them in a deep phalanx whose hedge of points could pin and hold an enemy line (1-2 marks).
The Companion cavalry: He built the elite Companion cavalry (the hetairoi) into a shock strike force, so that the phalanx fixed the enemy while the cavalry delivered the decisive charge, the tactic known as "hammer and anvil" (1 mark).
A professional combined-arms force: He added hypaspists, light troops, and siege engineering, and drilled a standing, paid, national army loyal to the king rather than a seasonal militia (1 mark).
The result: These reforms, funded by the Thracian mines, made Macedon the dominant military power of the Greek world, the instrument Alexander would inherit (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward the sarissa phalanx and the hammer-and-anvil use of the cavalry, not a vague claim that Philip "made the army stronger."

core6 marksExplain how control of the Thracian mines contributed to the rise of Macedon under Philip II.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark "explain" needs the seizure itself, what the money paid for, and how that compounded Philip's power.

Seizing the resource: After taking Amphipolis in 357 BC, Philip pushed east and secured the gold and silver of the Pangaeum region, re-founding the town of Crenides as Philippi in 356 BC. Diodorus reports the mines yielded on the order of 1,000 talents a year, an enormous revenue for a fourth-century state (2 marks).
What the money bought: This bullion paid for a standing, professional army that could campaign all year, for mercenaries and siege engineers, and for the heavy bribery of politicians inside rival Greek cities. Philip is even said to have struck his own gold coinage (the "Philippei"), giving him a portable instrument of diplomacy (2 marks).
The compounding effect: Money, army and diplomacy reinforced one another: conquests funded the army, the army won more territory and revenue, and gold opened gates that arms alone might not. This is the point behind the saying that no fortress is impregnable if an ass laden with gold can climb to its walls (2 marks).

Marker's note: markers reward linking the mines to the mechanisms of expansion (a paid army plus bribery), with the Pangaeum/Philippi detail and Diodorus' figure given context.

core6 marksExplain the significance of the Third Sacred War for Philip II's advance into central Greece.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark "explain" needs the war's cause, Philip's intervention, and why it mattered for his position in Greece.

The war and Philip's opening: The Third Sacred War (356 to 346 BC) began when Phocis seized Delphi and used its treasures to hire mercenaries. Invited into Thessaly against the Phocians, Philip turned a local sacred quarrel into a route south (2 marks).
The Crocus Field and Thessaly: After early reverses, Philip crushed the Phocian general Onomarchus at the Battle of the Crocus Field (c. 353 BC), his men reportedly wearing laurel as avengers of Apollo. He was then made archon (leader) of the Thessalian League, gaining its cavalry and revenues and a foothold in central Greece (2 marks).
The settlement of 346 BC: By the Peace of Philocrates (346 BC) Philip ended the war, and was admitted to the Amphictyonic League, taking the two Delphic Council votes stripped from Phocis and presiding over the Pythian Games. This gave a Macedonian king a recognised religious and diplomatic standing at the heart of Greek affairs (2 marks).

Marker's note: markers reward the movement from intervention (Crocus Field, Thessaly) to legitimacy (the Amphictyonic seats in 346 BC), not just a narrative of the fighting.

exam20 marksAssess the importance of diplomacy and money, as against military reform, in Philip II's rise to the mastery of Greece.

Show worked solution →

A 20-mark "assess" answer needs a thesis weighing the two factors, argument lines tied to dated evidence and historians, a model paragraph, and a judgement.

Thesis: Philip's rise rested on a reformed army as its foundation, but it was the combination of that army with unmatched wealth and cunning diplomacy that made him master of Greece; the factors were interlocking, not rivals, though the army was primary because it made the wealth and the diplomacy credible.
Argument 1: the army as foundation: The re-armed sarissa phalanx, the Companion cavalry and combined-arms tactics (Diodorus, Book 16) turned a broken kingdom into the strongest power in the Greek world, winning Amphipolis (357 BC), the Crocus Field (c. 353 BC) and Olynthus (348 BC). Without this instrument nothing else was possible.
Argument 2: money multiplied the army: The Pangaeum mines and Philippi (356 BC), yielding on Diodorus' figure around 1,000 talents a year, paid for a standing professional force and for siege engineering, letting Philip campaign year-round while militia-based rivals could not. N.G.L. Hammond stresses this financial and organisational transformation.
Argument 3: diplomacy and bribery: Philip used marriage alliances, the Peace of Philocrates (346 BC), his Amphictyonic seats and heavy bribery to divide his enemies and open gates, as the saying about the gold-laden ass records and as the betrayal of Olynthus suggests. Ian Worthington emphasises Philip the calculating diplomat as much as the general.
Counter-view: Demosthenes' Philippics and Olynthiacs blame Athenian complacency and Philip's bribery for his success, downplaying the army; but this is hostile oratory meant to rouse Athens, and it understates the military reforms that underwrote the whole enterprise.
Model paragraph: The clearest sign that the factors interlocked is Olynthus in 348 BC. Philip could besiege the city because his professional army and siege train, paid from Thracian silver, allowed a sustained campaign; but the town is said to have fallen through treachery bought with his gold. Neither the army, nor the money, nor the bribery would have sufficed alone. As Worthington argues, Philip's genius lay in fusing force, wealth and diplomacy into a single method, which is why, unlike earlier hegemons, he could dominate Greece rather than merely win a battle.
Judgement: Military reform was the necessary foundation, but Philip's mastery of Greece by 338 BC came from welding that army to the wealth of the mines and to a ruthless diplomacy; the wealth and diplomacy were decisive precisely because the army stood behind them.

Marker's note: markers reward a sustained judgement on the relative weight of the factors, dated evidence (357, 356, 348, 346 BC), use of Diodorus and Demosthenes, and modern historians (Hammond, Worthington) used to build the case.

exam25 marksTo what extent was the rise of Macedon between 359 and 338 BC the achievement of Philip II himself? In your response, refer to relevant sources and historians' interpretations.

Show worked solution →

A Band-6 response needs a clear thesis, argument lines tied to dated evidence, engagement with historiography, a model paragraph, and a judgement answering "to what extent."

Thesis: The rise of Macedon was overwhelmingly, though not solely, Philip's personal achievement, since his army reforms, strategic seizure of resources and relentless diplomacy transformed a collapsing kingdom in a single reign; but he also built on Macedonian institutions and exploited the divisions of a war-weary Greece, so his achievement was that of a supremely able opportunist rather than a creator working from nothing.
Argument 1: Philip rescued a doomed kingdom: In 359 BC Macedon had lost its king and a reported 4,000 men to the Illyrians and faced rival claimants backed by Athens and Thrace. Philip's defeat of Bardylis (358 BC) and his reform of the army were decisive personal interventions without which the kingdom might not have survived.
Argument 2: the instruments were his: The sarissa phalanx, Companion cavalry and combined-arms method (Diodorus, Book 16), the seizure of the Pangaeum mines and the founding of Philippi (356 BC), and the year-round professional army were his design. Hammond credits Philip with a genuine military and administrative revolution.
Argument 3: but he exploited conditions he did not make: Greece was exhausted and divided after decades of war; the Third Sacred War handed Philip an invitation into Thessaly and central Greece; Athens was hesitant and, as Demosthenes complained, slow to respond. G.L. Cawkwell stresses that Philip profited from Greek disunity as much as from his own gifts.
Argument 4: the sources shape the verdict: Our picture comes from Diodorus (Book 16), the hostile oratory of Demosthenes, and Justin's epitome of Pompeius Trogus, none contemporary and neutral; Demosthenes magnifies Philip's bribery and Athenian failure, while the panhellenist Isocrates idealised him. Worthington weighs these against each other to recover a calculating, adaptable ruler.
Model paragraph: That the achievement was chiefly Philip's is clearest in the contrast between 359 and 338 BC. He inherited a kingdom that had just lost its king and army; within twenty-one years the same state broke the combined power of Athens and Thebes at Chaeronea. No institution or accident explains that reversal; it tracks one man's reforms, campaigns and diplomacy. Yet, as Cawkwell insists, Philip succeeded partly because the Greek states would not combine against him in time. His achievement was therefore to seize, with unmatched skill, an opportunity that Greek disunity created.
Judgement: To a very large extent the rise of Macedon was Philip's personal achievement, since his reforms and leadership turned collapse into dominance in one reign; but the qualification matters, because he built on Macedonian kingship and exploited a divided Greece, so he is best judged the outstanding opportunist of the age rather than a creator ex nihilo.

Marker's note: markers reward a sustained answer to "to what extent," precise dated evidence (359, 358, 356, 348, 338 BC), the sources named and weighed (Diodorus, Demosthenes, Justin, Isocrates), and historians (Hammond, Cawkwell, Worthington) used to build the argument.