Abstract
Scholars still debate the aims and motives of Philip II's campaign against the Achaemenid Greek city-states in Asia Minor. Was this campaign a prelude to an attack on the Achaemenid Empire, or was it an extension of Philip's efforts to dominate Greece and Asia Minor? Scholars have paid less attention to this question, focusing instead on Philip's perspective, his desire for revenge against the Achaemenids, and his plans for invading the Achaemenid Empire. This article presents a new perspective on Philip's invasion of the Achaemenid Empire in Asia Minor. It examines sources and research that directly or indirectly address this issue. The article aims to analyze the Macedonian king's ultimate goal and purpose. Studies show that Philip's actions in Greece were a necessary prelude to his next steps and that conquering Asia Minor and acquiring its wealth were the king's real goals. Of course, his suspicious death thwarted these goals, and the Great King seems to have played a role in it.
Keywords: Achaemenids, Philip of Macedon, Asia Minor, Artaxerxes Ochus, Darius the Great
 
 
 
Introduction
Following the Peloponnesian Wars and the Peace of Antalcidas (which was concluded with Achaemenid support in favor of Sparta), the Achaemenid Empire under Artaxerxes II successfully consolidated its influence over Greek territories. However, internal satrapal revolts—particularly Cyrus the Younger's rebellion and the Battle of Cunaxa—weakened the empire's internal cohesion. Subsequent military campaigns, such as Agesilaus' invasion and the unrest caused by the dismissal of satraps' mercenaries (e.g., Artabazus' revolt), exposed structural weaknesses in Asia Minor. The Achaemenid kings' neglect of developments in Greece and Macedonia created an opportunity for Philip of Macedon's rise to power. After securing dominance over Greece, Philip turned his attention to the Greek city-states under Achaemenid rule in Asia Minor—an action whose motives remain debated among scholars.
According to classical Greek sources (e.g., Aeschines, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Diodorus Siculus), two main perspectives exist regarding Philip's objectives: The first views his campaign in Asia Minor as an extension of his policy to dominate Greece, interpreting it as part of Macedonian expansion. The second considers Philip's ultimate goal to be an invasion of the Achaemenid Empire, with Asia Minor serving as a stepping stone for a broader eastern campaign. These views are reflected in the works of Western and Iranian scholars, including Griffith, Errington, Borza, Anson, Worthington, Hammond, Gabriel, Briant, Dandamaev, Pirnia, Zarrinkub, Rajabi, and Imanpour.
This study re-examines these sources and analyzes existing perspectives to offer a fresh outlook on Philip II's objectives in attacking the Greek cities of Asia Minor. By focusing on historical, political, and military contexts, it aims to bridge gaps in understanding the early conflicts between Macedonia and the Achaemenid Empire and to clarify the circumstances leading to Alexander's campaign.
 
Materials & Methods
This study uses a descriptive-analytical method to explore Philip II of Macedon's motives for attacking Greek city-states in Asia Minor. It examines his strategic goals, including claims of "pan-Hellenic revenge" against Persia. The research assesses whether his campaigns aimed at regional expansion or a larger invasion. Ancient texts and modern historiography are analyzed thematically and chronologically (359-336 BCE). The study reconciles conflicting sources and addresses biases like hostile Athenian views. It clarifies the link between Philip’s campaigns and his imperial ambitions. The findings contribute to debates on Macedonian expansion before Alexander. Ultimately, the research offers a framework to understand Philip’s geopolitical strategies in Asia Minor.
 
Discussion & Result
In the late 4th century BCE, Macedonian expansion under Philip II significantly heightened tensions with the Achaemenid Empire. Philip aimed to control Thrace and the northern coast of the Aegean Sea, extending Macedonian influence into Asia Minor—territory previously under Achaemenid control. This expansion threatened the empire’s strategic interests, positioning Philip as the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean and the undisputed ruler over Greece and the western parts of Asia Minor.
Despite offers of peace and alliance from Darius III to Philip’s general Parmenion, Philip rejected these overtures, motivated by his economic ambitions and military plans. This defiance provoked a strong response from Artaxerxes Ochus, the Achaemenid king, and his governors, who took military steps to curb Macedonian advances. Revolts erupted in regions such as Dascylium, led by governors like Artabazus who eventually fled to Athens. Philip sought to build alliances with local rulers such as Hermias and Pixodarus, but his efforts met mixed success, with some governors reaffirming loyalty to Artaxerxes.
Fearing Macedonian dominance, the Achaemenid Empire responded to Athens’ request for assistance against Philip, ordering governors in Asia Minor to resist his campaigns. These conflicts forced Philip to retreat, though he retained political control over key cities like Perinthus and Byzantium. Some scholars suggest a non-aggression pact may have been signed between Philip and Artaxerxes III before the Macedonian campaign, reflecting a tense but cautious power balance.
At the same time, the Achaemenid Empire was weakened by internal turmoil. The assassination of Ardashir Ochus, the brief reign of Arses, and Darius III’s rise to power coincided with widespread rebellions in Babylon, Egypt, and Asia Minor. This instability hampered the empire’s ability to effectively counter Philip’s advances.
Following the Council of Corinth in 338 BCE, Philip launched a campaign against Achaemenid territories in Asia Minor, sending an advance force under Parmenion and Attalus. The campaign sparked revolts among Greek cities there, many of which sided with Macedonia. Beyond military aims, Philip sought economic control of strategic Aegean islands to restrict the Achaemenid fleet’s operations.
However, as Darius III consolidated his power, Memnon, the Achaemenid governor, regained control over most lost cities except Abydos, which remained with Macedonia. In 334 BCE, Philip was assassinated by Pausanias at a wedding—an act some historians believe was orchestrated by Darius III to delay Macedonian aggression. Philip’s death triggered internal Macedonian conflicts and revolts among Greek city-states, setting the stage for Alexander’s later campaigns and illustrating the fragile power dynamics of the eastern Mediterranean in this era.
 
Conclusion
After securing power in Macedonia and subduing internal rivals, Philip II turned his attention to expanding his territory, first targeting Greek states like Athens and Sparta. His goal was to dominate Greece and solidify Macedonian hegemony. However, economic challenges—exacerbated by the high cost of military campaigns and the poor economic state of Greek cities—pushed Philip to seek resources beyond Greece. Recognizing that Greece alone could not sustain Macedonia's growing needs, he promoted a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire, using pan-Hellenic rhetoric as a pretext.
Philip cleverly gained the support of the Greek states through the Corinthian Council, framing his ambitions as a collective revenge against Persia. However, his true aim was the conquest of wealthy Greek cities in Asia Minor. These cities offered not only tribute and taxes but also increased Philip’s prestige among Greek states. The internal turmoil within the Achaemenid court, including weakened control over Asia Minor's satraps, further encouraged Philip’s expansionist plans.
Though he claimed to free the Greek cities from Persian rule, Philip’s actual motivation was their wealth. His campaign, however, was cut short by his sudden and suspicious assassination—a death that may have involved the Achaemenid king seeking to delay or stop Macedonian aggression.