Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by the_accursed »

Nikas wrote:As I can only think of a couple of cases where a heir-presumptive was personally tutored by a philosopher of Aristotle's calibre, the other being Dionysius II by Plato, then by definition I believe it is exceptional, even if meaning outside of the common standard. But not to split hairs there, I definitely agree with you it reflects very highly on Philip's wisdom and responsibility as king.


Note that my objection to using the word “exceptional” is that I don’t agree that it was necessarily a choice Philip arrived at after painstaking research. I think Philip cared about Alexander’s education and thought Aristotle would be a good teacher. To me, “exceptional care” and “highly educated” are hyperbole of a kind that is too common in discussions about Alexander. Nero was educated by Seneca, one of the greatest Roman philosophers. In his case though people rarely feel the need to point out that someone took “exceptional care” to make sure he’d get the best possible education, or that this education made him a “highly educated” man. And this, in my opinion, is not because Seneca wasn’t a great philosopher, but because Nero never "conquered the world”.
Nikas wrote:As for minimizing Alexander's military accomplishments, well while I may hold Philip the "greater" overall king, I believe to say that Alexander merely showed up and rode his generals coat-tails to victory after victory is untenable. Even if we allow for some bias in the sources for later over-grandisement vis-a-vis Parmenion and the other generals and a post-execution smear campaign, it seems pretty safe that the sources all accredit and acknowledge the overall grand-strategy, strategy, and tactical leadership of Alexander. Even where the opportunity to stretch the self-glorification was most opportune (i.e. Ptolemy's memoirs) I don't believe anyone claimed their success was not due to Alexander himself. Sure, they may have played important roles in individual battles here or there, but to Alexander went the overall credit and glory. This must be the orthodox view in antiquity, it is consistent as to later anecdotes (Alexander being the better general than say Hannibal or Scipio or Pyrrhus), or even when they did try to knock him down a notch or two, it was to say that Fortune (lucky) favoured him, not that he owed it to anyone else. Even in Livy where he takes on the "frivolous Greeks for claiming that the Romans would surely have bowed to the name of Alexander" doesn't go as far to say he was not a great general, just that Rome had it's own fair share. In fact, he makes the point that if Alexander fell, then it was all over as Rome could produce multiple generals while there was only one Alexander.


Alexander got the overall credit and glory simply because (in my opinion) he was king. Had someone else been king of Macedonia at that time, that person would have got the glory. My view is that it’s not a great mystery why the campaign against Persia ended with Macedonian victory. The Macedonians won because their army was better. They won with Alexander, and would also in my opinion have won without him. To think otherwise, one must believe that Philip’s great generals, with their decades of experience, would not have defeated Persia had it not been for the wise leadership and military genius of one of the least experienced participants in the campaign. To me, such a belief is not credible. Rather, In my opinion, Alexander seems a “great general” simply because of the greatness of his army and the relative weakness of his opponents. I agree though that your view both was and is the orthodox one.
Nikas wrote:As for the intelligence, well we seem to be straying a bit off of topic, but I would suggest that there is a big difference in those examples you cite of being "unintelligent" as opposed to calculated risk taking by a very intelligent person with very high stakes. Even very intelligent people make what seem very odd decisions (to others) at times based on their own set of criteria, how much more when the stakes are so high? Bill Clinton by all indications is highly intelligent a Rhodes Scholar, wore out secretaries with his command of policy and so on, yet it wasn't the most intelligent decision for his little dalliance with Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but I am betting it was a calculated risk that he wouldn't get caught for a little temporary, ahem, stress relief. Or in Alexander's example, appointing satraps were calculated political risks: the risk of a potential revolt vs say the risk of a sense of continuity for the population and a more seamless integration as the newest Persian king's subjects (Alexander) and less chance of a revolt (therein the calculated risk).
I do agree that simply reading would not be in itself a sign of any special intelligence, but the fact is that Alexander deliberately kept himself abreast of the latest advances in all fields (not just poetry or drama) and this is a sign I believe of continuous self-improvement and intellectual curiosity and growth at the very least.
Yes, Alexander was a risk taker. But this fact has little to do with my examples. Alexander didn’t try to introduce proskynesis at his court because he was a risk taker. He did it because his judgement told him it would be a good idea. The same was the case for his meddling in the “Pixodarus affair”. He felt threatened by the fact that Philip was about to marry off Arrhidaeus, and so his judgement told him it would be in his best interest to try to take Arrhidaeus’ place, against Philip’s will. His judgement then told him it would be a good idea to reject the advice to get married and father an heir. During the campaign against Persia, he regularly made decisions based on whims. One such whim got thousands of Macedonians killed in a desert. Note: yes, the march through the Gedrosian desert was an example of Alexander being a risk taker. What I consider utterly stupid, is the reason he took such a huge risk. It’s one thing to take a great risk and a have a good reason for it. Another to do it for an entirely nonsensical reason.

As for Alexander’s reading habits, in my opinion, the correct way to assess Alexander’s intelligence is not to base the assessment on what he might have read, but on how he actually applied his knowledge. That is: on his decisions and their consequences.
There is no truth in history.
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by the_accursed »

spitamenes wrote:
the_accursed wrote: Myself I would drop the “exceptional”. It may well have been an easy choice for Philip. To me, what’s truly exceptional about it is that Philip picked the man who’d become the most influential philosopher in history. This says something about Philip’s judgement.
I believe Philip was an exeptional king and general. I also believe he had amazing judgment. What I do not understand is how such an exeptional individual, who watched Alexander grow up, wouldn't have been able to see a lack of intelligence and ability in his own son. Philip did everything for Macedonia, and I believe with full confidence that he cherished his kingdom beyond anything else in his world, including his own flesh and blood. Why would he waste so much time and energy on Alexander if Alexander was such a below average individual?
Philip had, potentially, many teachers to chose among. There was only one potential heir. Had there only been one teacher to "chose" from, I'd not have credited Philip with having made a good choice. I don't know what Philip thought about Alexander's judgement, but I doubt the Pixodarus affair indicated to him that it was great. Even so, the fact remained: for the time being, Alexander was his only potential heir.

My assessment of Alexander's intelligence, though, is not based on speculations about what others "must" have thought of him. I base it on his own decisions and their outcomes.
There is no truth in history.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by marcus »

the_accursed wrote:
Nikas wrote:As for the intelligence, well we seem to be straying a bit off of topic, but I would suggest that there is a big difference in those examples you cite of being "unintelligent" as opposed to calculated risk taking by a very intelligent person with very high stakes. Even very intelligent people make what seem very odd decisions (to others) at times based on their own set of criteria, how much more when the stakes are so high? Bill Clinton by all indications is highly intelligent a Rhodes Scholar, wore out secretaries with his command of policy and so on, yet it wasn't the most intelligent decision for his little dalliance with Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but I am betting it was a calculated risk that he wouldn't get caught for a little temporary, ahem, stress relief. Or in Alexander's example, appointing satraps were calculated political risks: the risk of a potential revolt vs say the risk of a sense of continuity for the population and a more seamless integration as the newest Persian king's subjects (Alexander) and less chance of a revolt (therein the calculated risk).
I do agree that simply reading would not be in itself a sign of any special intelligence, but the fact is that Alexander deliberately kept himself abreast of the latest advances in all fields (not just poetry or drama) and this is a sign I believe of continuous self-improvement and intellectual curiosity and growth at the very least.
Yes, Alexander was a risk taker. But this fact has little to do with my examples. Alexander didn’t try to introduce proskynesis at his court because he was a risk taker. He did it because his judgement told him it would be a good idea. The same was the case for his meddling in the “Pixodarus affair”. He felt threatened by the fact that Philip was about to marry off Arrhidaeus, and so his judgement told him it would be in his best interest to try to take Arrhidaeus’ place, against Philip’s will. His judgement then told him it would be a good idea to reject the advice to get married and father an heir. During the campaign against Persia, he regularly made decisions based on whims. One such whim got thousands of Macedonians killed in a desert. Note: yes, the march through the Gedrosian desert was an example of Alexander being a risk taker. What I consider utterly stupid, is the reason he took such a huge risk. It’s one thing to take a great risk and a have a good reason for it. Another to do it for an entirely nonsensical reason.

As for Alexander’s reading habits, in my opinion, the correct way to assess Alexander’s intelligence is not to base the assessment on what he might have read, but on how he actually applied his knowledge. That is: on his decisions and their consequences.
But one could just as easily choose many examples that show Alexander making good decisions with 'good' consequences (I put in quotation marks because there might always be arguments as to whether the consequences were, indeed, 'good' - but 'bad' consequences don't necessarily mean that the decision was a poor one. This is eristics in practice.

Even with your examples: Alexander's reasons for wanting to introduce proskynesis were sound, in view of his overlordship of a vast, multicultural empire where the majority of his subjects were barbarian and used to the practice. It was the intransigence of the Macedonians that forced him to abandon the plan. Alexander's foresight and acknowledgement of the need to weld his disparate empire into a single whole showed incredible intelligence ... although common sense should have told him that it was never going to fly with the Macedonians. But a lack of common sense doesn't signify low intelligence.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by the_accursed »

marcus wrote:But one could just as easily choose many examples that show Alexander making good decisions with 'good' consequences (I put in quotation marks because there might always be arguments as to whether the consequences were, indeed, 'good' - but 'bad' consequences don't necessarily mean that the decision was a poor one. This is eristics in practice.
And I would consider the above sophistry in practise. Yes, Alexander made some good decisions too. So did Nero. So did practically every ancient leader. But not every ancient leader got his friends exiled. Not every ancient leader declared himself the son of a god and cause people to wonder if he'd gone mad. Not every ancient leader introduced policies that drove a wedge between himself and his countrymen and caused assassination attempts and a mutiny. Not every ancient leader regularly made decisions based on sudden "longings". Not every ancient leader got thousands of people killed in a desert because of such a "longing". And not every ancient leader made a decision that would lead to the collapse of their empire.

Yes...Alexander made some good decisions too. But how many ancient leaders that most people would recognize as "great" made as many comparably disastrous decisions as Alexander?
marcus wrote:Even with your examples: Alexander's reasons for wanting to introduce proskynesis were sound, in view of his overlordship of a vast, multicultural empire where the majority of his subjects were barbarian and used to the practice. It was the intransigence of the Macedonians that forced him to abandon the plan. Alexander's foresight and acknowledgement of the need to weld his disparate empire into a single whole showed incredible intelligence ... although common sense should have told him that it was never going to fly with the Macedonians. But a lack of common sense doesn't signify low intelligence.

ATB
Even a Macedonian man with average intelligence would, in my opinion, have been able to easily foresee the Macedonian reaction, and would have refrained from trying to introduce the practise at his court even if he'd have wanted to do so. Myself I see nothing "incredibly intelligent" about introducing policies that don't actually solve problems, but rather cause new ones.
There is no truth in history.
User avatar
spitamenes
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:51 pm
Location: St.Louis, U.S.

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by spitamenes »

Again? Really? I'm reading the SAME four or five comments over and over again. Its getting his friends exiled, the Gedrosian, Prosyknesis, Cleitus, and calling himself a god. We don't call him "Alexander the Fair", or "Alexander the Reasonable", or "Alexander the Intelligent". Are we discussing who was the Greater king? Or who was the Better king? I thought they were two very different things. I believe the better to be Philip. When you speak of 'Greater'? Alexander has no equal in my eyes. And there's many people from his own time up until now who would agree with that.
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

the_accursed wrote:Yes...Alexander made some good decisions too. But how many ancient leaders that most people would recognize as "great" made as many comparably disastrous decisions as Alexander?
How many leaders were able to bring their empire to the level that ATG brought his and consequently 'had' to make as many decisions as Alexander? Certainly, Philip's accomplishments loomed large but ATG's even larger. And with large quantities of decisions and decisions that require new and untried innovations, experiments and mistakes are par for the course. Few other's were forced to improvise with such regularity just to keep the whole thing together, let alone moving forward. You talk a lot of smack about ATG and twist much of what he did into bunglings & failings when knowledge of the full context of those decisions would reveal quite another matter. Why don't you take a moment to grace us all with your knowledge of ATG's 'good decisions'? Or are you here just to create problems and dissension?
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

spitamenes wrote:Again? Really? I'm reading the SAME four or five comments over and over again. Its getting his friends exiled, the Gedrosian, Prosyknesis, Cleitus, and calling himself a god. We don't call him "Alexander the Fair", or "Alexander the Reasonable", or "Alexander the Intelligent". Are we discussing who was the Greater king? Or who was the Better king? I thought they were two very different things. I believe the better to be Philip. When you speak of 'Greater'? Alexander has no equal in my eyes. And there's many people from his own time up until now who would agree with that.
It's an interesting take on the matter, though I have a problem with Philip's character. For me, this is perhaps the differentiating point between the two and maybe even why we see Philip getting himself killed off. So, to revisit the shadowy underworld of highly connected and powerful unknowns that orchestrate world affairs from behind the scenes...The Greeks (and Persians) had a pretty good idea what they had in Philip. And most were not entirely happy with the prospect of putting up with that sort of thing for another 20-30 years. ATG was young, idealistic, and perhaps (or so they hoped) easily controlled...perfect!
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

Nikas wrote:
Nicator wrote: 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.
Again, (other than calling him a hobbled, one-eyed drunk) I'm not demeaning Philip. As far as "the care Philip took for his heir", aren't we forgetting that Philip divorced Olympias and then tried to kill ATG at the banquet hall. He may have succeeded were it not for the drunken stupor he found himself in. Also, Philip, as mentioned earlier, did NOT claim an heir either. He left it to chance entirely. And, he seems to have been actively looking to replace ATG by his courtship and childing of Euridice (if, in fact, she did produce a child...male or not.)

I think we need more clarification on what greater means.

Also, we need to argue on the same footing here concerning what Macedonia was by the time of ATG's end. Originally, Macedonia was a small polis north of Thebes. After Philip, it was most of the known geographical area of Mediterranean Europe. Was it now also including the realm of Asia? Some contributing pothosians seem to be arguing that Macedon part of the Asian empire (myself included), some that Macedon was the seat of the empire and that Asia was the province. Whatever we feel it was, it was ATG's empire and he obviously centered it in Babylon. The old Macedon was now relegated to the position of a European province of the empire only. Perhaps the marshals still longed for the Macedon they used to know. But that was gone forever. This point is highly relevant concerning the Asian vs a Macedonian queen and any offspring forthwith. ATG seemed to have no interest in securing a Macedonian queen. In time, the rank & file, common soldier or high born marshal would have had to accept it as the new way of things.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

Paralus wrote:
Nicator wrote: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.
Nicator wrote:
Paralus wrote: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.
Paralus, your knowledge level is a treat to read and partake in. My point, though clumsily related, is that Philip's invasion was well underway by the time ATG came to the throne. So, that clock was and had been ticking already for quite some time. ATG was under the gun to get Europe squared away and get on with the real campaign over the Hellespont as soon as possible. Certainly, Persia had no immediate designs on Europe either before Darius came to the throne or after. Just as certain was that the Persians had to get mobilized quickly and prepare to resist. With a state the size of Persia, time was against Philip, ATG, & Macedon et al.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

marcus wrote:
Nicator wrote:Since most pothosians seem to be squarely in the 'ATG blew it by not producing a viable heir' camp...I would posit the obvious, i.e...Even if Alexander managed to produce an heir before he left for Asia, the little darling would only have been around 13 years old upon his forlorn father's death. I seriously doubt he would have been allowed to reach 14. Like I stated earlier, the window was open for a very brief time and then it snapped shut forever. Philip was forever in Europe...his whole mating paradigm was vastly different.
I'm not sure it would be right to say "most Pothosians" - we have only heard from two or three, after all! :D

While I myself don't fall into the "he blew it" camp - at least, not entirely - I would suggest that a thirteen-year-old son by a Macedonian wife (as she would probably have been) would not have been bumped off so soon. Remember that it took thirteen years before Cassander felt secure enough to murder Alexander IV, and also Heracles. While I don't like to apportion all the blame to Alexander for the collapse of his empire, I do think it is true that had he fathered an heir before leaving Macedonia there wouldn't have been such a problem on his death.

Having said all that, of course, if he had fathered an heir before leaving Macedonia, who knows whether that child would have survived, infant mortality being what it was? And there was the question of who would bring up the child while his father was on campaign? And what if his wife didn't conceive immediately - how long would that have delayed Alexander's campaign?

Anyway, that's rather getting off the point - the fact is, I think an heir conceived before 334BC was more likely to survive than some might think.
Nicator wrote:I forget the source that mentions it, but Rhoxanne had a stillborn child while in Hephaestions care on the way back from India. It seems that at least an effort was made to produce an heir.
It's only mentioned in the Metz Epitome (chapter 70). I'm not sure that the ME says Roxane was in Hephaestion's care (I'm at schoo, so don't have my copy with me); and it was on the way to India. It also isn't clear whether the child was still-born, or died in infancy.
Yes, the overall pothosian contribution seems to be limited ;)

You may have a point about that 13 year old not getting the ax so soon. But certainly, he would have been doomed before actually realizing power.

Also, can't remember if that child was a girl? Memory is fuzzy on that one altogether.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

marcus wrote:
Nicator wrote: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
Yes, but as I pointed out in a different reply, the issue was never whether or not Persia was interested in Europe before Philip's incursions...it was after. And from the moment Philip's army took to the (Persian) field that clock was ticking (or rather...that sand was sifting through the hourglass). Certainly, the Persians bloodied nose from last time they attempted Greece kept her at bay for decades into the future, but with a European army making incursions into the Persian realm proper, Persia had to act. And the risk was that Persia might successfully resist and turn the tide back into Greece proper. Though, I digress.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

Paralus wrote:
spitamenes wrote:Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true.
And that would be because it isn't true.

Philip came to power in the immediate shadow of his brother's death on the battlefield against the Illyrian Bardyllis - along with some 4,000 Macedonians. Bardyllis was preparing an invasion of what was left of Macedonia and the Paeonians were planning likewise. Whilst this was happening Athens, scheming of empire past and fixated upon Amphipolis, produced the pretender Argaeus and "dispatched Mantias as general with three thousand hoplites and a considerable naval force" in support of him. Not to be outdone, the Thracians mobilised in support of "a certain Pausanias who was related to the royal line of Macedon" and prepared "to join the contest for the throne of Macedon" (Diod.16.2.6).

Clearly a perfect time to inherit the "kingdom" with "all the pieces laid out before Philip". Pieces is the perfect word: a kingdom in pieces.
spitamenes wrote:how long was Alexander out of country on campaign? He traveled thousands of miles on foot and horse [...] How many wounds did he receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING?
What, pray tell, is remarkable about that?
I think there's a pearl of wisdom in this thread. We hear of ATG standing over Philip on the battlefield and protecting him during the fracas with the mercenaries where Philip was struck hard, fell down, and shammed death or unconsciousness. This was Phil's character. ATG, on the other hand, with severe dysentery, concussions, broken bones, gashes and puncture wounds continued to fight and lead his men without fail. This is perhaps why we hear him called Alexander the Great. While Philip was simply called Philip II.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Paralus »

Nicator wrote:Also, we need to argue on the same footing here concerning what Macedonia was by the time of ATG's end. Originally, Macedonia was a small polis north of Thebes.
North of Thebes Macedonia might have been; a "small polis" it never was.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

marcus wrote:
Nicator wrote: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.
Have you read Moses Finlay, The Ancient Economy?

ATB
Not yet. But if you have a moment to spare from your academic rigors, check out "The Richest Man in Babylon". It's a quick read, fictional, and contains material lessons that are still valid today.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Nicator
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by Nicator »

Paralus wrote:
Nicator wrote:Also, we need to argue on the same footing here concerning what Macedonia was by the time of ATG's end. Originally, Macedonia was a small polis north of Thebes.
North of Thebes Macedonia might have been; a "small polis" it never was.
Yeah, I didn't think you'd let me get away with that description. Perhaps, better to describe it as a rough and tumble area north of Thebes.
Later Nicator

Thus, rain sodden and soaked, under darkness cloaked,
Alexander began, his grand plan, invoked...

The Epic of Alexander
Post Reply