The Assassination of Philip II
Despite his successes, Philip's reign was not without turmoil and intrigue. His numerous marriages and the presence of powerful nobles created a complex and often contentious court. These internal dynamics contributed to his assassination in 336 BCE. Philip was murdered by one of his bodyguards, Pausanias, during the wedding celebration of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander I of Epirus.
The motives behind Philip's assassination remain a subject of historical debate. Some theories suggest personal vendettas, possibly involving Philip's treatment of Pausanias. Others propose political conspiracies, with rival factions within the Macedonian court seeking to destabilize Philip's rule. Regardless of the exact reasons, Philip's assassination left a power vacuum that his son Alexander was poised to fill.
""""
""""
Please scroll down to the comment section follow the link to continue reading the next page.
You can also like, and share your thoughts about this episode, Thank you.
About the Creator
Daily Read
Welcome to our Vocal blog! We cover almost anything in engaging chapters and episodes. Dive in with at least 5 episodes a day to stay entertained. 50% of our content features diverse voices. Join our creative family for daily discovery!
Enjoyed the story? Support the Creator.
Subscribe for free to receive all their stories in your feed.
Reader insights
Keep reading
More stories from Daily Read and writers in Chapters and other communities.
Alexander the Great part 20
The League of Corinth Philip's most significant diplomatic achievement was the establishment of the League of Corinth in 337 BCE. This federation of Greek states, excluding Sparta, recognized Philip as their leader, or hegemon, and pledged their support for his leadership. The League of Corinth was a remarkable feat of diplomacy, uniting the often fractious and independent Greek city-states under a single banner for the first time in history.
By Daily Readabout a month ago in Chapters
The Search For Andromeda
Chapter Five: The Last Stand The lab was a hive of activity, a cacophony of alarms, data streams, and the hum of high-powered machinery. Elara stood at the center of it all, her gaze fixed on the holographic display that dominated the room. The ripple—the entity, The Devourer—was still approaching, though its speed had been slightly diminished by the EMP pulse. The delay was a temporary reprieve, but it had bought them precious time.
By Emmanuel Oyewale3 days ago in Chapters
On Burning Bridges the Right Way
When one chooses or is forced to leave a group with which one has been associated for an extended period of time one of the most oft heard pieces of advice is how important it is that one "not burn any bridges" on their way out the door. This advice is said to apply no matter the circumstances (good, bad, or neutral) of ones leaving of the particular group. However, it is most often spoken of in the case of unfriendly or forced departures. In those instances, the idea is that the relationships (the bridges) one has nurtured within the group over time, are more important than any particular action(s) of any person(s) in the group that resulted in said individual being forced out against his or her will. In the case of large organizations it may be that the person(s) responsible for the forced ejection of the individual are very far removed from that persons actual day to day "life" in the organization, and thus do not have much of a relationship (bridge) to begin with, and thus would likely be at least partially exempt from the standard advice on the importance of not burning bridges. More commonly however, forcing an individual to leave a group against their will almost always requires the direct 'negative' intervention of one or more other individuals in the group that the leaver does know and usually knows very well. I use the word negative in this case only because from the perspective of the individual being forced to leave (the leaver) the outcome is (at least perceived to be) a negative. If it were not they would not protest at being asked/forced to leave. In most cases, the person being forced out of the group probably has some personal relationships with the persons whose interventions (whatever they may be) have in some way led to their forced departure from the group, and these relationships may have been positive, negative, or neutral from the leavers point of view.
By Everyday Junglist4 days ago in Humans
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.