Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[amyntoros]

Hi Nicator:

What does Macedonia's wealth have to do with it? These power broker types are international types, perhaps, Persians, Athenians, Lydians, etc...
Don't forget that Macedonia was on the forefront of world affairs for some time. And with the centralized political structure and key strategic location north of Athens and between Greece proper and Persia, Macedon was well positioned to take full advantage of manpower, resources, and trade. And for Demosthenes to focus his rants on Philip with such a rabid intensity, Macedon must have been more than just a backwater 3rd world horse depot. And big money is almost always in the know where opportunity exists and can be exploited. And then, as now, these power brokers would not want to be known or recognized. That would invite thieves and other forms of financial attack. The speculation can go no further. But it is that speculation where big money types have pulled some strings and set up an assassination that is the point here. Beyond that, why bother.

Still trying to understand who these unrecognized "big money" types are supposed to be, especially during the pre-Hellenistic period. In Greece there were cities, farms, and monarchies, and it's self evident where the money came and went as far as the monarchies are concerned. Farmers sold to the city. The cities took care of their own - the more money a citizen had, the greater the amount he had to contribute to the pool, so would have been impossible to hide one's wealth. Major commodities were slaves and grain, and when grain had to be imported (frequently) the prices at the source were known. There was no opportunity for middle men type traders to both grow rich and to hide that fact.

The same goes pretty much for cities outside of Greece, and we pretty much know how Persian wealth was distributed. I truly doubt there was opportunity for great money (and therefore power) to be "hidden" there either.

You've said the the speculation can go no further, but I don't think it's gone far enough unless you can suggest in more detail who these "hidden" big money types might possibly be - within the context of the period - and how they believed they would benefit by "exploiting an opportunity" such as having Philip assassinated.

You don't have to convince me of anything, of course. I'm simply letting you know where I'm stuck regarding this hypothesis.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Or did they arrange to plant Barsine in his household to spy on him, ineffectively, for their unspecified and unclear ends?

ATB

Oh well connected there.

Perhaps Parmenion was paid off by these shadowy market manipulators too? The paides basilikoi, youthful and out to solve the world's ills by 18, were an easy mark for their plant Callisthenes the closet Keynesian.

It is likely that such nefarious manipulation for gain would inspire a possibly violent reaction amongst the "pezon-tariat" as in this famous example. There is tantalising evidence for such in the various "mutinies" of the campaign and, in an errie parallel to modern Balkan fiscal ructions, the cancellation of debts...

[Paralus]

Pardon my lack of rebuttal in Monopthalmos' case. The original post was in regards to Philip not his other generals.

Firstly Philip:

Diod.16.4.5
Philip, commanding the right wing, which consisted of the flower of the Macedonians serving under him, ordered his cavalry to ride past the ranks of the barbarians and attack them on the flank, while he himself falling on the enemy in a frontal assault began bitter combat.

Diod 16.75.3
Philip constantly battered the walls with his rams, making breaches in them, and as his catapults cleared the battlements of defenders, he would at the same moment drive through the breached walls with his soldiers in close formation and assail with scaling ladders the portions of the walls which he had cleared. Then hand-to‑hand combat ensued and some were slain outright, others fell under many wounds.

Diod. 16.86.1;4
The armies deployed at dawn, and the king stationed his son Alexander, young in age but noted for his valour and swiftness of action, on one wing, placing beside him his most seasoned generals, while he himself at the head of picked men exercised the command over the other [...] Then the king also in person advanced, well in front and not conceding credit for the victory even to Alexander; he first forced back the troops stationed before him and then by compelling them to flee became the man responsible for the victory.

Diod. 16.93.6
For a few days after this, as Philip was engaged in battle with Pleurias, king of the Illyrians, Pausanias stepped in front of him and, receiving on his body all the blows directed at the king, so met his death.

Clearly the "one eyed and hobbled" Philip was no Lord Raglan of Balaclava in his battles.

However, Alexander is attested in numerous accounts as 'leading' his troops into battle at the tip of the spear and in the thick of things. Thus, a "lead by example" general [...] Perhaps you can clarify for me whether old one-eye(Antigonus) 'led' his troops into battle in this fashion or was he the general behind the scenes that sat back and watched his troops and marshalls lead the battle?

Certainly.

Diod.18.44.4; 45.1
A stubborn battle was waged and many fell on both sides; then Antigonus led six thousand horsemen in a violent charge against the phalanx of the enemy in order to cut Alcetas' line of retreat to it [...] Antigonus, however, led his elephants and his whole army down from a higher position and struck panic into his opponents, who were far inferior to him in number;

Diod. 19.29.4-5; 30.8-9
...next to them (on the obliquely forward right wing - 29.7) the thousand known as the Companions with Antigonus' son Demetrius as commander, now about to fight in company with his father for the first time. At the outer end of the wing was the squadron of three hundred horsemen with whom Antigonus himself was entering the battle [...] For as soon as Eumenes' Silver Shields and the remaining body of his infantry had routed those who opposed them, they pursued them as far as the nearer hills; but Antigonus, now that a break was thus caused in the line of his enemy, charged through with a detachment of cavalry, striking on the flank the troops who had been stationed with Eudamus on the left wing.

Diod.19.40.1; 42.4
Antigonus placed his cavalry on the wings, giving the command of the left to Pithon and that of the right to his own son Demetrius, beside whom he himself planned to fight [...] While this was taking place, Antigonus joined battle with those who were opposite him and by appearing with a large number of cavalry struck panic into Peucestes, satrap of Persia, who in retiring from the dust cloud with his own cavalry drew away fifteen hundred others as well.

To seriously plagiarise the words of Charles Portis: Id say that's brave leading from the front for a one-eyed fat man!. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Monophthalmos acted any differently in any other of his battles. Seems both "one-eyes" acted rather similarly in leading from the front. Antigonus was no stranger to "electrifying" rapid marches either.

[Nicator]

My question to you would be why are you attempting to bash Alexander for the sake of Philip? Is it your contention that Alexander had nothing to do with the victory at Guagamela? Was is NOT Alexander that devised the battle plan? The rolling box of phalanx designed to face out in all direction appears to have been an invention of Alexander's...not Philip. The 'Epaminondas Maneuver' was certainly bequeathed by Philip but the clever adaptation was born of Alexander. And I'll cede you this, if only because I have no point to prove one way or another, it was Parmenion's bravado on the left that allowed Alexander's master-stroke on the right to succeed. It was the exceptionally well trained phalanx battalions that was capable of implementing the rollout formation. It was the highly trained cavalry divisions on both wings that punched through against nearly overwhelming numbers in opposition. Much of that for sure was inherited from Philip. But we never hear of Philip taking on an army the size encountered at Issus, Guagamela, or Hydaspes. I would contend that it was Alexander's genius & drive that made the whole thing run and move forward. Particularly at the speed with which he did. And I disagree with your contention that the commander was not needed and that his generals were the ones that did all the heavy lifting. Though, lifting they did. It was a team effort from top to bottom and the top guy had to be the best of the bunch for the hierarchy to work or the jackals would have seen to his removal much earlier on. So, I agree with Green's comments concerning Alexander being the product of Philip AND Macedon. It was that competitive 'kill or be killed' environment that forged the entire military regime from top to bottom. This only gives more precedence to Alexander's imperative as the best of the best.

I'm not "...attempting to bash Alexander for the sake of Philip". I'm just stating my opinions. No, I don't give Alexander much credit for the Macedonian victories, Gaugamela included. I think Philip's experienced generals were the ones who devised the battle plans, based on, but not carbon copies of, the tactics they'd already used for over two decades. I give Alexander credit for his ability to cheer the Macedonians on as they conquered the world for him, but that's about it. I note that the Macedonian army performed just as well immediately after Philip's death as it had when he was alive and ask myself: what's the most reasonable explanation for this? I also note that most historians agree that the Macedonian army was the best in the world and ask myself: is it surprising, then, that they won?

As I've said before in this thread, if Occam's razor is applied to Alexander's career, a belief that Alexander must have been a "military genius" is not necessary to explain why Macedonia won. Rather, the myth of Alexander's ”genius” is in my opinion a consequence of the victories the greatest army in the world delivered to him. And that army was created and made great by Philip.

Philip once said that he took greater pride in his diplomatic accomplishments than in his military victories, as he owed his diplomatic accomplishments only to himself. In my opinion Alexander should be judged the same way. If we disregard the victories Philip's army won during Alexander's reign, how well did he do? What kind of king was he? In my opinion, from very early on and to the end of his career and life, Alexander often showed remarkably poor judgment. Even before he became king, his judgment got several of his closest friends exiled from Macedonia. Then he became king and refused to follow the advice to marry and father an heir before the invasion of Persia. His "orientalisation" policies caused a severe rift between himself and the Macedonians, resulting in assassination attempts, the deaths of several of his generals and a mutiny. He declared himself the son of a god and demanded that the Macedonians who'd conquered the world for him should grovel in the dirt before him. And throughout his career he often made decisions based not what was best from a strategic point of view, but on a sudden ”longing” for this and the other – such as leading a part of his army through the Gedrosian desert just because Cyrus and Semiramis supposedly had tried to.

This is the man you consider a ”genius” and think I'm ”bashing”. Myself I think that, were it not for the genius of Philip, people today would see Alexander for what he was: an utterly mediocre man who was never leadership material.

Well, I sure can't fault you for taking a stand. It is my opinion that Alexander was an excellent general and and excellent leader. But Philip was too. Was Philip greater than Alexander? I don't know but the figures at the time didn't seem to think so. Certainly, Philip's capabilities set him apart and perhaps we should be more cognizant of that. But the legend of Alexander was known throughout the known world, whereas, Philip was a local & regional phenomenon. Perhaps this is why his legacy ran through the ages with such a widespread tenacity. But beyond that, I have heard precious little from the others regarding Alexander's accomplishments but nonstop chatter about how wonderful the old-timers were...including Philip. I guess this was because someone went off on a tangent about Alexander's age compared to Philips. It's kid of silly to argue that point. My contention was simply that Alexander was far more capable physically then Philip perhaps ever was. But especially by the age that Philip was succeeded by his son. But again...this was a minor issue in the grand 'scheme' of things. I was very surprised that so many went hog wild about my post even after I clearly stated from the very beginning that it was supposition. And even mocked myself concerning the fact that I threw the supposition out there. Everybody seems to love to attack my posts I guess. Perhaps I should feel flattered?

I'd prefer to hear more true comparisons between Philip and Alexander where possible. There has been precious little offered in that respect. But, then again, how can you really compare the two? One was a product of the other. Alexander's greatness was fostered on the shoulders of a true giant. Philip was perhaps not so much of an original thinker....not a creative genius. But his accomplishments appear to be borne of a rote methodical and purposeful nature. Alexander, on the other hand, appears to have been well trained by his father and his father's army. This he took and modified extensively to subjugate the realm. For Alexander the entire program had to be continually modified. It was an evolving campaign for which Philip's teachings had no answer. Alexander had to learn a new way of doing things on the fly. His teachings from Aristotle concerning the Persians must have come in handy...but even that was no answer when Alexander went off the map into Bactria and India. The sheer size and scale of what Alexander did is difficult to imagine. But in the end, it's just not fair to disparage either Philip or Alexander as their respective accomplishments stood on their own.

And finally a sports analogy. No football team is so good that they can win a superbowl without a gifted quarterback and great coaching from top to bottom...and of course, without truly talented and well trained players to execute the plays. Disparaging Alexander as a simple cheerleader is ridiculous. Though, effective cheerleading (let's call it coaching) is a necessary part of any winning team. If Alexander was not able to make his soldiers fight for him, he was as good as dead from the get-go. His men believed in him or they would never have followed him to the ends of the earth through countless battles and skirmishes...through hardships that must have pressed them all to their wits end on numerous occasions. We hear of the army relying heavily on Alexander by the time they are making their way down the Indus. That would not be the case for a simple cheerleader. He developed the battle plan for Guagamela, per Arrian, and executed it to perfection. I doubt Philip nor Monopthalmos could have done what Alexander did on that day.

And finally, I'd just add that although this whole diatribe is getting tiresome...I am glad that you have at least taken a stand where ALL the others have limped off into the shadows and brought up mostly tangent topics that add little if anything the the overall subject.

[Nicator]

marcus wrote:
Or did they arrange to plant Barsine in his household to spy on him, ineffectively, for their unspecified and unclear ends?

Ha!...you guys are still bitching about that one huh?! Get a life pal...

[thuyhuynh]

yes,His father Philip prepared the table for Alexander and all he did was sit and eat.

[Nicator]

Hi Nicator:

What does Macedonia's wealth have to do with it? These power broker types are international types, perhaps, Persians, Athenians, Lydians, etc...
Don't forget that Macedonia was on the forefront of world affairs for some time. And with the centralized political structure and key strategic location north of Athens and between Greece proper and Persia, Macedon was well positioned to take full advantage of manpower, resources, and trade. And for Demosthenes to focus his rants on Philip with such a rabid intensity, Macedon must have been more than just a backwater 3rd world horse depot. And big money is almost always in the know where opportunity exists and can be exploited. And then, as now, these power brokers would not want to be known or recognized. That would invite thieves and other forms of financial attack. The speculation can go no further. But it is that speculation where big money types have pulled some strings and set up an assassination that is the point here. Beyond that, why bother.

Still trying to understand who these unrecognized "big money" types are supposed to be, especially during the pre-Hellenistic period. In Greece there were cities, farms, and monarchies, and it's self evident where the money came and went as far as the monarchies are concerned. Farmers sold to the city. The cities took care of their own - the more money a citizen had, the greater the amount he had to contribute to the pool, so would have been impossible to hide one's wealth. Major commodities were slaves and grain, and when grain had to be imported (frequently) the prices at the source were known. There was no opportunity for middle men type traders to both grow rich and to hide that fact.

The same goes pretty much for cities outside of Greece, and we pretty much know how Persian wealth was distributed. I truly doubt there was opportunity for great money (and therefore power) to be "hidden" there either.

You've said the the speculation can go no further, but I don't think it's gone far enough unless you can suggest in more detail who these "hidden" big money types might possibly be - within the context of the period - and how they believed they would benefit by "exploiting an opportunity" such as having Philip assassinated.

You don't have to convince me of anything, of course. I'm simply letting you know where I'm stuck regarding this hypothesis.

Best regards,

Hello Amyntoros,
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I'd just say that I have several businesses of my own and I can assure you that money can be moved, hidden, and manipulated as necessary (within the confines of the law...or course). And I have no doubt that the ancients were every bit as capable of creative accounting. So, try not to get too hung up on the 'who' as you will likely never find that kind of information. I listed it as supposition and it should be taken as such. Like my Barsine post, enjoy it as a new hypothesis that has not yet been submitted. And I can say it was just as successful in that it has definitely shaken up pothos quite a bit.

The opportunities were already being exploited. Philip was interfering with those opps and that alone would be reason enough to take him out. His interference in the Hellespontine corn route was significant in this regard. The destruction of citadels and townships up and down the Aegean. All of it causing massive disturbances to the trade routes and in the process, creating opps for some while destroying it for others. Such is the nature of trading, money, and the cycle of economics.

[marcus]

marcus wrote:
Or did they arrange to plant Barsine in his household to spy on him, ineffectively, for their unspecified and unclear ends?

Ha!...you guys are still bitching about that one huh?! Get a life pal...

Couldn't resist it, Nicator!

ATB

[marcus]

...I am glad that you have at least taken a stand where ALL the others have limped off into the shadows and brought up mostly tangent topics that add little if anything the the overall subject.

When all has been said that needs to be said, what need there be for any more to be said ...

ATB

[marcus]

Hello Amyntoros,
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I'd just say that I have several businesses of my own and I can assure you that money can be moved, hidden, and manipulated as necessary (within the confines of the law...or course). And I have no doubt that the ancients were every bit as capable of creative accounting. So, try not to get too hung up on the 'who' as you will likely never find that kind of information. I listed it as supposition and it should be taken as such. Like my Barsine post, enjoy it as a new hypothesis that has not yet been submitted. And I can say it was just as successful in that it has definitely shaken up pothos quite a bit.

I think the point that Amyntoros is trying to make is that things were by their very nature more transparent than they are nowadays. The only "hidden" way of accumulating wealth was if one accepted bribes, and even then one was usually found out (take, for example, the Athenians who were prosecuted for accepting bribes from Harpalus, including Demosthenes, and it is by no means certain that he *did* take a bribe).

You talk of creative accounting, but the Greeks didn't have the sophisticated accounting mechanisms that we do nowadays. The economy did not produce surpluses of the type that could possibly create the sort of Crassus/Croesus-type wealth that would be needed for your hypothesis to hold water. Or, if for any reason it did, there was no way for these people to hide their wealth and manipulate world events from behind the scenes.

One only has to remember that the Greeks were puzzled by why the Persians would wish to invade in the 6th century, because Greece had no wealth to attract the already fabulously wealthy Persians.

ATB

[Paralus]

marcus wrote:
Or did they arrange to plant Barsine in his household to spy on him, ineffectively, for their unspecified and unclear ends?

Ha!...you guys are still bitching about that one huh?! Get a life pal...

Perhaps there was the supposition you were interested. Then again, that's likely only speculation

[Paralus]

I guess this was because someone went off on a tangent about Alexander's age compared to Philips. It's kid of silly to argue that point.

The only thing I'd agree with you on here Nicator...

Since when did a pronounced limp, caused in battle (which proved to everyone that Philip was a warrior), or having one eye (the other being lost in battle) cause anyone to worry about Philip's ability as a general or as a king? How could these two things lead, directly or indirectly, to his downfall?

The issue was Philip's physical capabilities. To lead that battle into Asia, a younger man who was incredibly physically fit would certainly be a better candidate. Especially, since this was very likely to grow into a long and protracted affair.

[Paralus]

He took the machine developed by his father and fundamentally changed its character and capability by reversing the role of infantry and cavalry. This opened up the speed of conquest and utilized the infantry predominantly as a clean-up force in tow. This was crucial to what Alexander was able to accomplish.

Clearly military history is not your interest.

What the 18 year old prince accomplished at Charonea was no accident. And later, his adaptations to so many different military styles of combat (pitched battle, skirmish, guerrilla,and siege) and his willingness to expand his machine with whatever tools (personnel, weapons) was beyond what Philip ever did.

For someone so wedded to "supposition" you are so welded to the "Alexander company" line. Read the language used by Diodorus (our only surviving "narrative" source for this battle).

Just where do think Alexander procured his siege train and its engineers from?

Alexander's aura of greatness and invincibility was about the only thing keeping the army together. When the thought of him dying became a serious possibility, the morale of the army sank to dangerous levels. It was then that they truly appreciated just how great Alexander truly was and how screwed they would be if he was gone.

"Greatness and invincibility"?? Read the source material. The army was India (as far as one can be removed from Macedonia at the time) or Babylon (his actual death). This was no (possible) death of a king in Pella. You take such right out of its context because it suits your purpose. Had Philip lead the Macedonians to India and was near death you can bet the reaction will have been exactly the same other than for one fact: Alexander was clearly the Argead heir.

The bald fact was that no royal army, far and away into enemy territory and with territory still unsubdued in its rear, wanted to be without its king. This is all the more alarming when, with the absolute lack of an heir, that army sees only a clamoring claque of marshals.

Lastly, I’d be very wary of seeing the ancient world in modern fiscal and monetary terms.

[Nicator]

Hello Amyntoros,
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I'd just say that I have several businesses of my own and I can assure you that money can be moved, hidden, and manipulated as necessary (within the confines of the law...or course). And I have no doubt that the ancients were every bit as capable of creative accounting. So, try not to get too hung up on the 'who' as you will likely never find that kind of information. I listed it as supposition and it should be taken as such. Like my Barsine post, enjoy it as a new hypothesis that has not yet been submitted. And I can say it was just as successful in that it has definitely shaken up pothos quite a bit.

I think the point that Amyntoros is trying to make is that things were by their very nature more transparent than they are nowadays. The only "hidden" way of accumulating wealth was if one accepted bribes, and even then one was usually found out (take, for example, the Athenians who were prosecuted for accepting bribes from Harpalus, including Demosthenes, and it is by no means certain that he *did* take a bribe).

You talk of creative accounting, but the Greeks didn't have the sophisticated accounting mechanisms that we do nowadays. The economy did not produce surpluses of the type that could possibly create the sort of Crassus/Croesus-type wealth that would be needed for your hypothesis to hold water. Or, if for any reason it did, there was no way for these people to hide their wealth and manipulate world events from behind the scenes.

One only has to remember that the Greeks were puzzled by why the Persians would wish to invade in the 6th century, because Greece had no wealth to attract the already fabulously wealthy Persians.

ATB

Marcus,
Of course, the Greeks didn't have sophisticated accounting methods like today (and it's silly? to even mention it). But I STRONGLY disagree regarding the manipulation of apparent wealth via income/expenses, and asset/liabilities. There was then as now, many ways to manipulate wealth (and what the royals got to see of it). In fact, because the controls were so primitive, it would have been even easier to hide the size of shipments and to take portions of the shipments aside for other uses (at a higher price). The very fact that there was 'scarcity' leads to opportunity (...and higher price). Where money is concerned, no capitalist, then or now, would easily let his hard won earnings slip away to some government bureaucrat. Herein lies another good example of reading the source material and not extrapolating the obvious.

And regarding your hypothesis of the puzzled Greeks, as I stated earlier, these were international types not limited to the spartan economic rigors to which the average Greek was enslaved. And countries such as Egypt and Persia certainly produced yearly surplus' of grain. This was necessary to offset years of drought.

[Nicator]

He took the machine developed by his father and fundamentally changed its character and capability by reversing the role of infantry and cavalry. This opened up the speed of conquest and utilized the infantry predominantly as a clean-up force in tow. This was crucial to what Alexander was able to accomplish.

Clearly military history is not your interest.

What the 18 year old prince accomplished at Charonea was no accident. And later, his adaptations to so many different military styles of combat (pitched battle, skirmish, guerrilla,and siege) and his willingness to expand his machine with whatever tools (personnel, weapons) was beyond what Philip ever did.

For someone so wedded to "supposition" you are so welded to the "Alexander company" line. Read the language used by Diodorus (our only surviving "narrative" source for this battle).

Just where do think Alexander procured his siege train and its engineers from?

Alexander's aura of greatness and invincibility was about the only thing keeping the army together. When the thought of him dying became a serious possibility, the morale of the army sank to dangerous levels. It was then that they truly appreciated just how great Alexander truly was and how screwed they would be if he was gone.

"Greatness and invincibility"?? Read the source material. The army was India (as far as one can be removed from Macedonia at the time) or Babylon (his actual death). This was no (possible) death of a king in Pella. You take such right out of its context because it suits your purpose. Had Philip lead the Macedonians to India and was near death you can bet the reaction will have been exactly the same other than for one fact: Alexander was clearly the Argead heir.

The bald fact was that no royal army, far and away into enemy territory and with territory still unsubdued in its rear, wanted to be without its king. This is all the more alarming when, with the absolute lack of an heir, that army sees only a clamoring claque of marshals.

Lastly, I’d be very wary of seeing the ancient world in modern fiscal and monetary terms.

Paralus,
I can see that you posts are becoming increasingly 'hostile' in nature. And I can see that this hostility is 100% aimed at me. This is strange coming from you.

Nonetheless, I am well aware of where the army was, where Alexander died, the context of all of it, where Alexander got his army, engineers, and siege train, and that Alexander was the Argead heir (though, why exactly you bring that up in this context is beyond me). Then you bring up something about his army being alarmed because all they see is a clamoring clack of marshals...isn't this a case where YOU have taken things out of context to prove your own point(s)? It seems though, that you've only helped to prove my point, i.e...Alexander was more than just a cheerleader, he was king and the undisputed leader of the army. Indeed, he was heavily relied upon.

I am also well aware of the fiscal and monetary context to which the ancients were subjected in contrast to our own. Like Marcus' comment about the sophisticated accounting methods, it's ridiculous to even make this comment.

But beyond all that, come on Paralus take a stand and tell us...IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT PHILIP WAS GREATER THAN ALEXANDER?