Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Philip's Letter to the Athenians (extra credit)

In response to Demosthenes' diatribes against him, Philip of Macedon wrote a fascinating letter to the Athenians. Read through the letter. What evidence do you see here of Philip's skill as a diplomat? What evidence that he in some ways deserves the title "great"?

5 comments:

  1. Ruth Wilson

    There is a preface by the translator, Thomas Leland, he states in reference to Demosthenese' response to Phillip's letter, "To have answered the letter particularly would have been very difficult; for, though Athens had the better cause, yet many irregularities had really been committed, which Philip knew how to display in their full force." In other words, Leland thinks the Athenians had the better cause, but Phillip knew how to spin it so that he came out as the injured party. Wether Athens really had a better cause, I don't know, but I can tell y'all this; they were SO wrong in the way they treated Phillip.

    They Athenians didn't try very hard to make treaties. They didn't care if the ones they did make were in dirrect confrontation with previous treaties between Phillip and other nations. When this was pointed out to them, they didn't try to fix it, they just let the wound fester. The Athenians were rude, capturing messengers and imprisoning them, removing and reading private letters- def. a social no-no... It sounds to me like the Athenians were being school yard bullies. If I were a forieign diplomat listening to this letter being read aloud in Athens, I would really start examining ALL the things the Athenians were doing and saying. Mayhapse the closer scruteny would pay off!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter Ryman

    I spose he would be a good diplomat because I had no idea what he was saying!~!~!

    No, I had some idea, but good grief..... Why can't they say things in plainer terms!!!!!! So unnecessary!!! I like God's standards of wisdom better: "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." ;)

    What ever though, ... I did read it.. I guess, I'm just so fed up with all of the longwinded speeches we've had to endure in this class (none of them from you Mr. Marmorstein! ;)

    It's one thing to expand one's vocabulary and intellect... but it's another thing to overload and damage the storage capacity. I'm kind of twitching right now from reading that letter...probably not a good sign :)

    So anyway, I don't think he deserves the title "great" either... Other than being able to use words in a way that sounds good but confuses the meaning and truthfulness of what one's trying to say. ...In the same case with Alexander, he may have done a few good things, but he still had problems (did you say something about how he was a madluster for guys??).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Peter about this one, he definately was very long winded in this letter. He was a good diplomat because he laid all out of the wrongdoings in front of him so everyone knew why he was going to attack. This is important because then people all around Greece will understand that he doesn't just attack people to kill them but most of the time they had it coming to them.

    I really did not see anything that makes him the Great in this letter. I think he was a very important man and it was sweet how he unified Greece into one, but I don't know if the great should be used with Philip.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I was skimming through this I found it to be very difficult and almost gave up on the extra credit, but just as I was about to move on I stumbled across something I can understand. Empassioned words from a scorned man. The second to last paragraph really just put the nail on the head for what he was saying.

    It's not easy communicating with someone or a group of someones (Athens)that just don't care or want to listen to what you've got to say. Phillip makes some good cases and really has had enough by the end of the letter. He may not be considered great, but he definately had some element of greatness in him to stand up to that.

    Kelsey Leddy

    ReplyDelete
  5. He is showing that one must not attack the enemy, but that one must instill the fear of attack so as to quietly take over their freedom.

    Kevin Nakajima

    ReplyDelete