Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[Paralus]

Alexander himself was a half-breed and the Macedonians seemed to accept him quite readily.

Half Epirote is a very substantially different thing to half barbaroi. The Macedonians were quite prepared to acclaim Pyrrhus king. He, though, was not half Iranian.

Evidently, you are distressed over the word 'demean'? Nevertheless, I think it appropriate for your comments on Alexander's 'failure'. He died. It's not a failure. It's an early and untimely ending. Not Alexander's fault.

When an line of argument is difficult, ignore it. The point is - as I've said twice and you sidestep - there was no viable heir not the fact that he died. In contrast to his son, Philip seems to have sired a child every time he sealed a campaign - and he began quite early.

Macedon was the causeway between Asia and Greece. Over and over throughout recorded history (recent to the time under consideration) we see Persia in Macedon on the way to Greece.

Persia had not been "in Macedon" since the 470's.

In Philip's era, Macedon was certainly on the list of things to be concerned over.

In "Philip's era" the Great King had far too many other matters to concern him than Macedon. The only recorded time that Philip's Macedon struck the King's radar was Philip's activities in the Propontis. Until then the Great King took a studied disinterest in Macedonian affairs preferring to see to his own, more important, backyard and Egypt.

I would have you explain just what Persia would have done with the war started on their soil already.

You may wish me to explain with substantiated arguments but, as I never posited an inert Persia after the Macedonian invasion, it is not relevant. In a soundbite: what it did; resist.

Is it your contention that if Philip completed the annexation of Asia Minor, Persia would NOT react?

I don't believe I ever "contended" that.

So, it is your contention that Alexander should never have gone to war with Persia...?

I did not ever contend this and this habit of imputing statements to me that I have not made is rather disingenuous

I ask this because it seems ridiculous to claim that Alexander had some choice here.

I don't recall ever discussing whether or not Alexander 'had a choice here".

[Nicator]

Nicator wrote:
Alexander himself was a half-breed and the Macedonians seemed to accept him quite readily.


Half Epirote is a very substantially different thing to half barbaroi. The Macedonians were quite prepared to acclaim Pyrrhus king. He, though, was not half Iranian.

I don't disagree, in fact, Olympias may have been seen as a high class acquisition...even improved breeding stock by the typical lowly rank and file grunt. But it does seem that the same rank and file were open to Alexander IV being named king. The child was Alexander's son. And Rhoxanne had a good long time to grow on them during the campaign.

Nicator wrote:
Evidently, you are distressed over the word 'demean'? Nevertheless, I think it appropriate for your comments on Alexander's 'failure'. He died. It's not a failure. It's an early and untimely ending. Not Alexander's fault.


When an line of argument is difficult, ignore it. The point is - as I've said twice and you sidestep - there was no viable heir not the fact that he died. In contrast to his son, Philip seems to have sired a child every time he sealed a campaign - and he began quite early.

...? You kind of lost me on parts of this point. Philip and Alexander were of quite different personalities. There was no viable heir because he died. Not because there was no viable heir. Alexander IV (and Heracles & the unborn child of Darius' daughter sired by ATG) was unprotected and doomed because his father was gone. Now who's sidestepping?

Nicator wrote:
In Philip's era, Macedon was certainly on the list of things to be concerned over.


In "Philip's era" the Great King had far too many other matters to concern him than Macedon. The only recorded time that Philip's Macedon struck the King's radar was Philip's activities in the Propontis. Until then the Great King took a studied disinterest in Macedonian affairs preferring to see to his own, more important, backyard and Egypt.

For sure Persia's king was tied down with other more pressing needs at the time. But that obviously ended with a bang soon enough. I like your turn of phrase...'studied disinterest' though. Regardless of the type of interest it was, in time, it became front row, dead center, top priority material to be digested and dealt with. Philip was coming and perhaps his removal was directly ordered by Darius himself. Though, we'll never know that one either.

[Nicator]

Nicator wrote:
Macedon was the causeway between Asia and Greece. Over and over throughout recorded history (recent to the time under consideration) we see Persia in Macedon on the way to Greece.


Persia had not been "in Macedon" since the 470's.

True, but could be in Macedon at an instant. You asked for substantiation...

Nicator wrote:
So, it is your contention that Alexander should never have gone to war with Persia...?


I did not ever contend this and this habit of imputing statements to me that I have not made is rather disingenuous

Nicator wrote:
I ask this because it seems ridiculous to claim that Alexander had some choice here.


I don't recall ever discussing whether or not Alexander 'had a choice here".

I have not imputed anything to you other than asking you a legitimate question based on your statement that Alexander failed to sire a legitimate heir and that ATG set the table for chaos. My point being that ATG had no choice in either the heir or the setting of the table except for avoiding the conflict altogether. And as mentioned earlier, that was really not a viable option by the time ATG inherited the throne. So, please stop with the 'disingenuous' accusation...you know I like you way too much to hit below the knees

[Paralus]

There was no viable heir because he died. Not because there was no viable heir. Alexander IV (and Heracles & the unborn child of Darius' daughter sired by ATG) was unprotected and doomed because his father was gone. Now who's sidestepping?

There was no viable heir becuse, by the age of thirty two, Alexander had not got around to "producing" one (the gestating Alexander IV aside). In an age where a cut or a cold could - and did - kill, that puts the line at serious risk. This was something his forebears had, in stark contrast, not done. There was time before the anabasis and - quite clearly - during it. Arguments based on the age of the heir are largely irrelevant. The point is that when he died Alexander's heir was yet to be born and yet to survive beyond exiting the womb - always a difficult thing in times prior to antibiotics. It was a recipie for chaos and not one Philip had created.

Persia had not been "in Macedon" since the 470's.

True, but could be in Macedon at an instant. You asked for substantiation...

Hardly - both the statement or the substantiation.

The Great King could never have been in Macedon in an instant. Any invasion by Persia always took time to mount. The fleet being readied by the King in Phoenicia and reported to Sparta in winter 397/6 (most likely aimed at Egypt and thoroughly misread by Sparta) was not ready for action until it sailed under Pharnabazus and Conon in 394. The resistance to Philip's incursion was local and to Alexander, initially, satrapal. Royal armies are a different creature and royal armies of invasion different again.

In any case, the Great King had no interest in either Macedon or the mainland Greeks from the end of the Peloponnesian War onwards. From the time of Athens' tactical tragedy in supporting Amorges (which Thucydides cares not to background), the Kings' aim was the restoration of his right to the Asian littoral and, therefore, the "Greeks of Asia". This was the strategic aim of Persian diplomacy down until, essentially, the Macedonian invasion. Persia had no interest in any land or sea invasion of Macedonia or Greece; she had a marked inerest in marking the bounds of her Empire and enforcing same.

[Nikas]

I think its fair to say your litmus test would hold up as a very good way to decide the better king. But is the 'better' king always the 'greater'? We were discussing who was the greater king, and in the days of Alexander, and the days when our precious few sources were being thought up and written down, glory decided much of what a king did and seemed to be a deciding factor in who was considered great or not. Stability of the kingdom is a very big factor in finding the better king. But glory and conquest seemed to be much of the defining subjects of greatness. And if that is correct then I believe Alexander to be the 'greater'.

I would say yes, better is greater however I do see your point, if the only test were perhaps military fame. Yet even there I would make the argument that Philip was as brilliant as Alexander. He innovated an army that was never highly regarded, and recently shattered, into the finest war machine until that time, and as the Lucan Dialogue states, he did it against a higher calibre of armies than one might say for Alexander. He humbled the powers of Greece, the Illyrians, the Thracians and there should be no doubt he was on the verge of doing what Alexander eventually did had not a premature death not hit him.

[Nikas]

It's not fair to Alexander to demean him based on the collapse of his kingdom. And what a massive kingdom it was. Had he not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.

Also, like Philip, Alexander had no choice on when he died AND he did leave some choices for an heir. Who's to say what could have been had he lived another 15 to 20 years to consolidate gains and 'raise' the heir apparent.

And a little jab for the accursed...yes, a Macedonian army was defeated (without Alexander at the helm). Sorry, couldn't help it

Ah, but then it is not fair to demean Philip for not conquering the Persian empire as he was prematurely assassinated? And one can hardly say Alexander deliberately left a viable heir for Macedonia. If you are referring to the half-barbaroi offspring, assuming we can overlook the fact that after the issues he had with the proskynesis affair and the Macedonians reactions to that, someone as intelligent as Alexander should have seen that would never work, then he certainly lingered on long enough during his illness to at least unequivocally name a regent? As Paralus has stated elsewhere, if the sources are correct here then his cavalier attitude to the succession was frankly almost unparalleled in incompetency. Contrast this to the care Philip took for his heir, can we honestly compare the grooming of Alexander himself with his succession planning? Philip would never have taken the risk and would (did) ensure that an acceptable heir was in place.

[Nikas]

Nikas, I have to disagree here. The kingdom was perennially most threatened by Persia and Persia was eliminated forever. Certainly, the kingdom in the European sphere was destabilized but only at the cost of a much larger and more powerful dominion overall. It should be noted that Alexander should not be blamed for what his generals and marshalls did to his empire upon his death. Alexander did his job masterfully.

I'd be curious to see a growth comparison between the geographical size of Philip's Macedon and Alexander's Macedon. It might be surprising to reveal what I strongly suspect to be the case. And that is that Philip's Macedon perhaps grew 150%-300% beyond his original territorial bounds and that Alexander's kingdom maybe only another 500%-800%. Certainly, better than under Philip's tenure but not so much better that it can be discounted as unworthy of the title great.

The kingdom was not particularly threatened by Persia for quite some time, the Persians preferring to play off the Greek powers amongst themselves. In fact, the most recent mortal threat to the kingdom was the southern Greek powers themselves, Thebes and Athens. The Persian campaign was a masterstroke of Philip's, to secure his southern flank in a panhellenic campaign while still expanding the dominion of Macedonia. Of course, you understand that I do disagree that Alexander should be blamed for what his generals and marshals did to Macedonia after his death. He should be blamed because, unlike his father, he did not take seriously the task of providing an acceptable Argead heir to the throne, in contrast to his own marshals advice, prior to leaving on campaign or thereafter, nor for at least ensuring an undisputed heir when he knew the end was near. He may have circumvented the later actions of his generals had he done what really should have been a major priority.

[Nikas]

Indeed. He laid up an entire store house of incendiaries amidst a group of pyromaniacs, left and failed to supply any manager of the lock and key and wondered why the entire facility burned to the ground.

Precisely. If we grant that Alexander was a highly educated and intelligent person which none of us dispute, it is unbelievable that the succession could be left to the mighty funeral games of chance. Is this not by itself the definition of professional negligence? Akin to a lawyer not bothering to leave a will, or a investment adviser who takes your nest egg and let's it all ride on one hot stock tip? They simply should know better.

[marcus]

It's not fair to Alexander to demean him based on the collapse of his kingdom. And what a massive kingdom it was. Had he not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.

I'm a bit behind on this thread - a lot seems to have happened since I logged off last night!

Paralus has already pointed out that Persia had not bothered itself with Greece for over a hundred years - except from a diplomatic point of view.

From a geographical point of view, of course (and slightly facetiously), one would have to point at that Persia was already on Macedonia's doorstep - the only thing separating them was the Hellespont!

ATB

[the_accursed]

Precisely. If we grant that Alexander was a highly educated and intelligent person which none of us dispute...

Not quite none of us.

[marcus]

Indeed. He laid up an entire store house of incendiaries amidst a group of pyromaniacs, left and failed to supply any manager of the lock and key and wondered why the entire facility burned to the ground.

Precisely. If we grant that Alexander was a highly educated and intelligent person which none of us dispute, it is unbelievable that the succession could be left to the mighty funeral games of chance. Is this not by itself the definition of professional negligence? Akin to a lawyer not bothering to leave a will, or a investment adviser who takes your nest egg and let's it all ride on one hot stock tip? They simply should know better.

I have to say that I am always a little trouble by the idea of finding too much fault with Alexander for dying without an heir. True, he could (should?) have "started" earlier; true, also, that he cannot be entirely exonerated on that fact that he didn't intend to die so young, especially given his warlike activities, etc.

HOWEVER, he had begun to make familial inroads (and, had his first child with Roxane not died in 326, he would have had a living heir), and he did have Arrhidaeus as well. Had he not fathered any children at all, then I think it would be fair to upbraid him. But I don't think we should hold him entirely to account for the events after his death. Even had he specifically named an heir, there is no saying that, once he was dead, the soldiery and marshals wouldn't have over-ruled his declaration - after all, Philip had managed to usurp the Macedonian throne when Perdiccas' son was already born.

Like I say, I'm not suggesting that Alexander be held blameless; but I do think it's a bit harsh if we were to blame him entirely for what happened.

Just as an aside, looking once more at British history - Richard Coeur de Lion is rarely castigated for not leaving any children behind (although he did, in fact, leave at least one illegitimate son), yet there was dispute over the succession and John, who did succeed him, managed to lose most of the Angevin Empire to the French king within 5 years of his succession. It's John who's blamed for that, not Richard. Yet Richard was about eight years older when he died than Alexander was when he died, so his inability to provide an heir should surely earn him much more blame?

ATB

[marcus]

Precisely. If we grant that Alexander was a highly educated and intelligent person which none of us dispute...

Not quite none of us.

I think you would need to justify that comment.

ATB

[the_accursed]

Precisely. If we grant that Alexander was a highly educated and intelligent person which none of us dispute...

Not quite none of us.

I think you would need to justify that comment.

ATB

I don't disagree that he was educated, though I'd personally drop the "highly". I disagree that he was particularly intelligent. This based on the numerous occasions during his life when he showed poor judgment. The level of Alexander's intelligence should in my opinion be inferred from his actions and their consequences, not assumed. In my case, as I don't believe Alexander had much to do with the Macedonian victories, this means Alexander's actions off the battlefield.

[spitamenes]

I don't disagree that he was educated, though I'd personally drop the "highly". I disagree that he was particularly intelligent. This based on the numerous occasions during his life when he showed poor judgment. The level of Alexander's intelligence should in my opinion be inferred from his actions and their consequences, not assumed. In my case, as I don't believe Alexander had much to do with the Macedonian victories, this means Alexander's actions off the battlefield.

So by that logic, highly educated people cannot make poor judgment calls.

[spitamenes]

My fiance is highly educated, and she hasterrible judgment... she also doesn't read Pothos so I can say those kinds of things.