The fifth century in Greece started off with the Persian invasions, and ended with the Peloponnesian War, and now we're entering intothe fourth century in Greece.
And as we enter into the fourth century, Thebes is the dominant city state, but as we get into the mid fourth century, and especially the end of it, we will see that all ofGreece gets dominated, and then unified, by theMakedonians, or the Macedonians, and in particular, the first unifier here was Philip of Macedon.
This is a bust of him.
And he's known, as hecomes to power in 359 BCE, he comes to power, hisfather was king of Makedon, but then his olderbrothers die, he becomes, it's actually his nephewwho is heir to the throne.
He becomes regent for his infant nephew, which means that he hasthe power temporarily, but then he actually takes full control, and becomes king of Macedon, or Makedon, as it's often pronounced, in 359 BCE.
And what he then goes off about doing is taking over most of the Greek city states.
And, eventually, he's able to unify most of the Greek city states.
And you can see on this map here, which I got from Wikipedia.
This is a little bit ofinformation about the map.
You can see how he expandedhis empire over time.
Remember, 359 BCE, hebecomes king of Macedon.
In 352, he's moving into Thessaly.
Then, in the 340s, he's going into Thrace.
So he's going into Thrace and Molossia.
And Molossia's interesting.
The king of Molossia, heactually ends up marrying the king of Molossia's daughter, Olympius, who ends up being Alexanderthe Great's mother.
And she's a pretty interesting character, as we will see in a little bit.
She was part of this cultthat worshiped snakes.
It's believed that she slept with snakes.
But, he goes off and continues to conquer.
Eventually, he's able to subjugate most of the city states of Greece, except for Sparta.
And that takes us to 337, right over here, where he's able to establishthe League of Corinth.
It was only called the League of Corinth after the fact, but he gets the leaders of the significant citystates together in Corinth.
That's why it's calledthe League of Corinth, and they swear their oath, essentially, to Philip, king of Makedon,who they call the Hegemon.
And what's really important about that is he's able to unifythe Greek city states, outside of Sparta, and in doing so, he setsthings up for his son, the famous Alexander the Great, to continue to unify Greece.
Alexander the Great's actuallyable to subjugate Sparta.
But then, more famously,he goes off to conquer the entire PersianEmpire, and then beyond, in his short life.
And we'll have at leastanother video on that.
But just to get a feel for what happened at the League of Corinth in 337 BCE, I will share this oath that the variouscitystates had to commit to.
And it says, "I swearby Zeus, Gaia, Helios, "Poseidon, and all the gods and goddesses.
"I will abide by the common peace, "and I will neither breakthe agreement with Philip, "nor take up arms on land or sea, "harming any of thoseabiding by the oaths.
"Nor shall I take any city or fortress, "nor harbor by craft or contrivance, "with intent of war againstthe participants of the war.
"Nor shall I depose the kingship "of Philip or his descendants, "nor the constitutionsexisting in each state, "when they swore the oaths of the peace.
"Nor shall I do anythingcontrary to these agreements, "nor shall I allow anyoneelse, as far as possible.
"But if anyone does commitany breach of the treaty, "I shall go in support ascalled by those who need, "and I shall fight thetransgressors of the common peace, "as decided by the council,and called on by the Hegemon.
" Who is, when the oath is made,who is Philip of Macedonia.
Now, unfortunately forPhilip, this happens in 337, where, for the most part,he's the first to unify the Greek city states, outside of Sparta.
But he's only able to liveabout a year after that.
A year later, we're now in 336 BCE, and he's in the old capitolof the Makedonian kingdom, which is very close to Pella, celebrating the wedding of his daughter to his brother in law.
So his daughter, whois Alexander's sister, she's being married to Olympius's brother.
So he's marrying hisdaughter to her uncle.
And it is during that wedding that Philip of Macedon is killed by Pausanias, who is his bodyguard.
And there's a lot ofreally interesting stories.
So, he's killed at the wedding in 336 BCE, and there's a lot ofreally interesting stories about what the motivationfor Pausanias was.
There are many accounts that say that Pausanias was Philip's lover, he was, on some level jealous, and he was on some level because another relative of Philipaffronted Pausanias, and Philip didn't go to defend him.
There's some narratives thatthis was arranged, somehow, by Olympius, Philip's wifeand the mother of Alexander, to put Alexander on the throne.
There're some motivations there because, also, shortly before the assassination, he took a second wife, whichwas his more favored wife, as opposed to Olympius.
So there's a lot of reallyinteresting accounts, and I encourage you to read up on it.
But the interesting thing is, is after he gets assassinated, well, then there's a bitof a scramble for power.
But it leaves Alexander the Great, or eventually, Alexanderthe Third officially, but eventually Alexander the Great becomes the Hegemon, and he's eventually, in his short life, he's only 20 years oldwhen he becomes king, he's able to, as we'll seein the next few videos, take over all of thePersian Empire and beyond, and subjugate Sparta.
So he further unifies the Greeks, and takes on the mighty Persian Empire.
The belief in equalitybefore the law -- not just for a few, but for the many;not just for the majority, but also the minority.
These are all concepts thatgrew out of this rocky soil.
Of course, the earliestforms of democracy here in Athens were far from perfect-- just as the early forms of democracy in the UnitedStates were far from perfect.
The rights of ancient Athenswere not extended to women or to slaves.
But Pericles explained, "ourconstitution favors the many instead of the few.
Thisis why it is called a democracy.
" Athenians also knew that,however noble, ideas alone were not enough.
To have meaning, principlesmust be enshrined in laws and protected byinstitutions, and advanced through civic participation.
And so they gathered in agreat assembly to debate and decide affairs of state,each citizen with the right to speak, casting their votewith a show of hands, or choosing a pebble -- whitefor yes, black for no.
Laws were etched in stonefor all to see and abide by.
Courts, with citizen jurors,upheld that rule of law.
Politicians weren't alwayshappy because sometimes the stones could be used toostracize, banish those who did not behave themselves.
But across the millenniathat followed, different views of power andgovernance have often prevailed.
Throughout human history,there have been those who argue that people cannothandle democracy, that they cannot handleself-determination, they need to be told what to do.
A ruler has to maintainorder through violence or coercion or an iron fist.
There's been a differentconcept of government that says might makes right, orthat unchecked power can be passed through bloodlines.
There's been the belief thatsome are superior by virtue of race or faith orethnicity, and those beliefs so often have been usedto justify conquest and exploitation and war.
But through all thishistory, the flame first lit here in Athens never died.
It was ultimately nurturedby a great Enlightenment.
It was fanned by America'sfounders, who declared that "We, the People" shall rule;that all men are created equal and endowed by ourCreator with certain inalienable rights.
Now, at times, even today,those ideals are challenged.
We've been told thatthese are Western ideals.
We've been told that somecultures are not equipped for democratic governanceand actually prefer authoritarian rule.
And I will say that aftereight years of being President of the UnitedStates, having traveled around the globe, it isabsolutely true that every country travels its ownpath, every country has its own traditions.
But what I also believe,after eight years, is that the basic longing tolive with dignity, the fundamental desire to havecontrol of our lives and our future, and to want to bea part of determining the course of our communitiesand our nations -- these yearnings are universal.
They burn inevery human heart.
It's why a Greek bishop atopa mountain raised the flag of independence.
It's why peoples from theAmericas to Africa to Asia threw off the yokeof colonialism.
It's why people behind anIron Curtain marched in Solidarity, and tore downthat wall, and joined you in a great unionof democracies.
It's why, today, we supportthe right of Ukrainians to choose their own destiny;why we partner with Tunisians and the peopleof Myanmar as they make historic transitionsto democracy.
This has been my foreignpolicy during my presidency.
By necessity, we work withall countries, and many of them are not democracies.
Some of them are democraciesin the sense they have elections, but notdemocracies in the sense of actually permittingparticipation and dissent.
But our trajectory as acountry has been to support the efforts of those whobelieve in self-governance, who believe in those ideasthat began here so many years ago.
And it is not simply amatter of us being true to our values.
It's not just amatter of idealism.
I believe it is practicalfor the United States to support democracies.
(applause) Because history showsus that countries with democratic governance tendto be more just, and more stable, and more successful.
Open, democratic societiescan deliver more prosperity --because when people arefree to think for themselves and share ideas and discoverand create -- the young people who are here, whatthey're able to do through the Internet and technology,that's when innovation is unleashed, when economiestruly flourish.
That's when new products,and new services, and new ideas wash throughan economy.
In contrast to regimesthat rule by coercion, democracies are rooted inconsent of the governed -- citizens know that there'sa path for peaceful change, including the moralforce of nonviolence.
And that brings a stabilitythat so often can facilitate economic growth.
The history of the past twocenturies indicates that democracies are lesslikely to fight wars among themselves.
So more democracy is goodfor the people of the world, but it's also good forour national security.
Which is why America'sclosest friends are democracies -- like Greece.
It's why we stand togetherin NATO -- an alliance of democracies.
In recent years, we've madehistoric investments in NATO, increased America'spresence in Europe, and today's NATO -- the world'sgreatest alliance -- is as strong and as readyas it's ever been.
And I am confident that justas America's commitment to the transatlantic alliancehas endured for seven decades --whether it'sbeen under a Democratic or Republican administration-- that commitment will continue, including ourpledge and our treaty obligation todefend every ally.
Our democracies showthat we're stronger than terrorists, andfundamentalists, and absolutists who can'ttolerate difference, can't tolerate ideas that varyfrom their own, who try to change people's way of lifethrough violence and would make us betray orshrink from our values.
Democracy is stronger thanorganizations like ISIL.
Because our democracies areinclusive, we're able to welcome people and refugeesin need to our countries.
And nowhere have we seenthat compassion more evident than here in Greece.
(applause) The Greek people'sgenerosity towards refugees arriving on your shoreshas inspired the world.
That doesn't mean that youshould be left on your own -- (applause) -- and only atruly collective response by Europe and the world canensure that these desperate people receive thesupport that they need.
Greece cannot be expected tobear the bulk of the burden alone -- but the fact thatyour democracy opens your heart to people in need in away that might not otherwise be the case.
Just as democracies arepremised on the peaceful resolution of disagreementswithin our societies, we also believe thatcooperation and dialogue is the best way to addresschallenges between nations.
And so it is my belief thatdemocracies are more likely to try to resolve conflictsbetween nations in a way that does not result in war.
That's how, with diplomacy,we were able to shut down Iran's nuclear weaponsprogram without firing a shot.
With diplomacy, the UnitedStates opened relations with Cuba.
(applause) With diplomacy, we joinedGreece and nearly 200 nations in the mostambitious agreement ever to save our planetfrom climate change.
(applause) And speaking of climatechange, I would point out that there is a connectionbetween democracy and science.
The premise of science isthat we observe and we test our hypotheses, our ideas.
We base decisions on facts,not superstition; not what our ideology tells us, butrather what we can observe.
And at a time when the globeis shrinking and more and more we're going to have totake collective action to deal with problems likeclimate change, the presence of a democratic debateallows the science to flourish and to shape ourcollective responses.
Now, democracy, like allhuman institutions, is imperfect.
It can be slow; it can befrustrating; it can be hard; it can be messy.
Politicians tend to beunpopular in democracies, regardless of party,because, by definition, democracies require that youdon't get a hundred percent of what you want.
It requires compromise.
Winston Churchill famouslysaid that democracy is the worst form of government --except for all the others.
(laughter) And in a multiethnic,multiracial, multicultural society, like the UnitedStates, democracy can be especially complicated.
Believe me, I know.
(laughter) But it is better than thealternatives because it allows us to peacefully workthrough our differences and move closer to our ideals.
It allows us to test newideas and it allows us to correct for mistakes.
Any action by a President,or any result of an election, or any legislationthat has proven flawed can be corrected through theprocess of democracy.
And throughout our history,it's how we have come to see that all people are createdequal -- even though, when we were founded, thatwas not the case.
We could work to expand therights that were established in our founding to AfricanAmericans, and to women, to Americans with disabilities,to Native Americans; why all Americans now have thefreedom to marry the person they love.
(applause) It's why we welcome peopleof all races and all religions and allbackgrounds, and immigrants who strive to give theirchildren a better life and who make ourcountry stronger.
And so here, where democracywas born, we affirm once more the rights and theideals and the institutions upon which our wayof life endures.
Freedom of speech andassembly -- because true legitimacy can only comefrom the people, who must never be silenced.
A free press to exposeinjustice and corruption and hold leaders accountable.
Freedom of religion --because we're all equal in the eyes of God.
Independent judiciaries touphold rule of law and human rights.
Separation of powers tolimit the reach of any one branch of government.
Free and fair elections --because citizens must be able to choose their ownleaders, even if your candidate doesn'talways win.
(laughter) We compete hard in campaignsin America and here in Greece.
But after the election,democracy depends on a peaceful transition ofpower, especially when you don't get theresult you want.
(applause) And as you may have noticed,the next American president and I could notbe more different.
(applause) We have very differentpoints of view, but American democracy is biggerthan any one person.
(applause) That's why we have atradition of the outgoing president welcoming the newone in -- as I did last week.
And why, in the comingweeks, my administration will do everything we canto support the smoothest transition possible --because that's how democracy has to work.
(applause) And that's why, as hard asit can be sometimes, it's important for young people,in particular, who are just now becoming involved in thelives of their countries, to understand that progressfollows a winding path -- sometimes forward, sometimesback -- but as long as we retain our faith indemocracy, as long as we retain our faith in thepeople, as long as we don't waver from those centralprinciples that ensure a lively, open debate, thenour future will be okay, because it remains the mosteffective form of government ever devised by man.
It is true, of course, overthe last several years that we've seen democracies facedwith serious challenges.
And I want to mention twothat have an impact here in Greece, haven an impact inthe United States, and are having an impactaround the world.
The first involves theparadox of a modern, global economy.
The same forces ofglobalization and technology and integration that havedelivered so much progress, have created so much wealth,have also revealed deep fault lines.
Around the world,integration and closer cooperation, and greatertrade and commerce, and the Internet -- all haveimproved the lives of billions of people -- liftedfamilies from extreme poverty, cured diseases,helped people live longer, gave them more access toeducation and opportunity than at any timein human history.
I've often said to youngpeople in the United States, if you had to choose amoment in history to be born, and you did not knowahead of time who you would be -- you didn't knowwhether you were going to be born into a wealthy familyor a poor family, what country you'd be born,whether you were going to be a man or a woman -- if youhad to choose blindly what moment you'd want to beborn you'd choose now.
Because the world hasnever, collectively, been wealthier, better educated,healthier, less violent than it is today.
That's hard to imagine,given what we see in the news, but it's true.
And a lot of that has to dowith the developments of a integrated, global economy.
But trends underway fordecades have meant that in many countries and in manycommunities there have been enormous disruptions.
Technology and automationmean that goods can be produced with fewer workers.
It means jobs andmanufacturing can move across borders where wagesare lower or rights are less protected.
And that means that workersand unions oftentimes have less leverage to bargainfor better wages, better benefits, have moredifficulty competing in the global marketplace.
Hardworking families worrytheir kids may not be better off than they were becauseof this global competition.
What we've also seen is thatthis global integration is increasing the tendenciestowards inequality, both between nations and withinnations, at an accelerated pace.
And when we see people --global elites, wealthy corporations -- seeminglyliving by a different set of rules, avoiding taxes,manipulating loopholes -- when the rich and thepowerful appear to game the system and accumulate vastwealth while middle and working-class familiesstruggle to make ends meet, this feeds a profound senseof injustice and a feeling that our economies areincreasingly unfair.
This inequality nowconstitutes one of the greatest challenges toour economies and to our democracies.
An inequality that was oncetolerated because people didn't know how unequalthings were now won't be tolerated because everybodyhas a cellphone and can see how unequal things are.
The awareness that peoplehave in the smallest African village, they can see howpeople in London or New York are living.
The poorest child in anyof our countries now has a sense of what other peoplehave that they don't.
So not only is thereincreasing inequality, but also there is greaterawareness of inequality.
And that's a volatilemix for our democracies.
And this is why addressinginequality has been one of the key areas of focusfor my economic policy.
In our countries, in Americaand in most advanced market economies, we want peopleto be rewarded for their achievement.
We think that people shouldbe rewarded if they come up with a new product or a newservice that is popular and helps a lot of people.
But when a CEO of a companynow makes more money in a single day than a typicalworker does in an entire year, when it's harder forworkers to climb their way up the economic ladder, whenthey see a factory close that used to support anentire city or town, fuels the feeling thatglobalization only benefits those at the top.
And the reaction can dragdown a country's growth and make recessions more likely.
It can also lead to politicsthat create an unhealthy competitionbetween countries.
Rather than a win-winsituation, people perceive that if you're winning, I'mlosing, and barriers come up and walls come up.
And in advanced economies,there are at times movements from both the left and theright to put a stop to integration, and to pushback against technology, and to try to bring back jobsand industries that have been disappearingfor decades.
So this impulse to pull backfrom a globalized world is understandable.
If people feel that they'relosing control of their future, they will push back.
We have seen ithere in Greece.
We've seen it across Europe.
We've seen it inthe United States.
We saw it in the vote inBritain to leave the EU.
But given the nature oftechnology, it is my assertion that it's notpossible to cut ourselves off from one another.
We now are living in aglobal supply chain.
Our growth comes throughinnovation and ideas that are crossing bordersall the time.
The jobs of tomorrow willinevitably be different from the jobs of the past.
So we can't look backwardsfor answers, we have to look forward.
We cannot sever theconnections that have enabled so much progressand so much wealth.
For when competition forresources is perceived as zero-sum, we put ourselveson a path to conflict both within countries andbetween countries.
So I firmly believe that thebest hope for human progress remains open marketscombined with democracy and human rights.
But I have argued thatthe current path of globalization demandsa course correction.
In the years and decadesahead, our countries have to make sure that the benefitsof an integrated global economy are more broadlyshared by more people, and that the negative impactsare squarely addressed.
(applause) And we actually know thepath to building more inclusive economies.
It's just we too often don'thave the political will or desire to get it done.
We know we need boldpolicies that spur growth and support jobs.
We know that we need to giveworkers more leverage and better wages, and that, infact, if you give workers better wages businesses dobetter, too, because their customers now havemoney to spend.
We know that we have toinvest more in our people -- the education of our youngpeople, the skills and training to competein the global economy.
We have to make sure that itis easy for young people who are eager to learn and eagerto work to get the education that they need, the trainingthat they need, without taking on hugeamounts of debt.