Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

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: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.
What will have been “highly relevant” was a Macedonian heir, in Macedon and under the care of the Queen Mother and the European regent Antipater. The Macedonians’ dislike of Alexander’s “Persianising” was palpable and it would be a much frayed piece of “Old Rope” that missed the clear opportunity to press the heir presumtive’s chances (and his own) to the “masses”. The Atrax Robustus will not have been shy in baring fangs over those who saw matters differently. You seem too ready to discount the sway this woman had with the Macedones in the period after ATG’s death – without an heir in Macedonia.

Perdiccas (and others) only found the room to move due to the fact that no heir existed at the time of Alexander’s death. That room will have been seriously curtailed in the event of the above.
Nicator wrote: 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 […] 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.
The sands through the hourglass were not as crucial as you make out. In the event, Alexander had plenty of time to conduct his campaigns throughout the north and into Greece. He also had time to re-arrange matters in the “Hellenic League”.

As well, the assembly and deployment of royal armies and fleets was not something accomplished in any short timeframe (as already pointed out and instanced by Issos). The question might be asked why the King didn’t assemble such given the Macedonian incursion. The answer would be that he didn’t see it as necessary.

As best we can guess, Philip had some 10-11,000 combatants operating in Asia Minor prior to his death. These troops were tasked with the old chestnut of “liberating the Greeks of Asia” and had met with mixed success. This task force is very often viewed in the reflected glow of the great invasion which followed under Alexander – therefore hindsight. The Great King did not necessarily see it that way and his reaction - the delegating of mercenary forces to meet the annoyance – shows this.

What is readily forgotten is that this was hardly the first such Greek army to “invade” the Empire. From Susa or Ecbatana the Great King might well be forgiven for ignoring the latest bout of pan-Hellenic claptrap emanating from the Balkans. In the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War (and Cyrus abortive rebellion) the Spartans sent armies under Dercyllidas, Thibron and Agesilaos. Agesilaos made great play of his intent to invade the Empire even unto aping Agamemnon. It turned into little more than raids on alternate satrapies. Later Thibron was killed and his army utterly defeated. All this handled by the local satraps.

The Great King might well be forgiven for viewing the latest pan-Hellenic outbreak with jaundiced, satrapal and mercenary eye.
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
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

Post by jan »

Reading this is rather interesting to me since I believe that it was Alexander who was hailed by the soldiers as their kIng after his performance at Charonea, not Philip who they acknowledged as their general; and Philip supposedly was proud that they hailed Alexander as such, not the "generals" who stood behind him, but him because it was he who led the charge, and he who saved his own father's life. Again, I am sure that it depends upon which historian one reads as to which story one wishes to believe.

Alexander was credited for his valor, his courage, his acumen, his strength, and his restraint after the battle was over. His father made a fool of himself before his Athenian friends who admonished him.

There is no question about who is greater Alexander or Philip and it truly doesn't matter. Philip is vindicated through Alexander in the end anyway, as Alexander had to continue the plan to subdue Persia.

It is Heckel who compares the Persians to the American CIA with respect to who gained the most from Philip's death. The Persians had the motive, the means, and the money to secure for themselves safety from Philip since they underestimated Alexander so much.

Philip essentially brought about his own demise, but Alexander responded to his responsibility to his father with stunning success and acceptance since he had already established himself through his time serving at Perinthos, actings as regent, subduing a tribe and establishing his own first city...Alexander at an early age had gained the respect and love of the troops and the community. Sorry, Accursed, but you are way off in your estimation!

Now granted, all this is based upon sources that are ancient but they have been slavishly adhered to over the ages...Alexander deserves his acclaim and fame! :roll:
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:
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.
Exactly. That is the exact point I am making.
the_accursed wrote: 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?
According to your argument, these bad decisions show us that Alexander wasn't particularly intelligent. Now you are acknowledging that he made some good decisions, which by the same boat must credit him with intelligence. He can only be one or the other, so which is it?

All this I wrote was nothing to do with whether Alexander was "great" or not - it is in response to your statement that he was neither well educated nor particularly intelligent. The first is nonsense - of course he was well educated; the second might still be debated, but you don't seem to be able to make up your own mind!
the_accursed wrote:
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.
Not necessarily, is my contention. But, then again, this argument is never going to go anywhere. Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that Alexander was intelligent, even if he was misguided, petulant, lacking in common sense, etc. at times. You don't. I don't think that anything either of us says will convince the other. Fair enough.

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 »

Nicator wrote:
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?
You and others give Alexander credit for the Macedonian victories, and I don't. That's the difference. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Alexander was intelligent if one thinks he was crucial to the Macedonian victories. But myself I've made very clear that I don't think he was. I'm very well aware that most disagree with that opinion, and I have no problem with it. As I've said myself, I do not believe I will be able to convince a single one of here that Alexander wasn't particularly intelligent.

As for dissension, that's an unfortunate consequence in a forum where some people take criticism of Alexander personally. I was asked to justify why I don't think Alexander was particularly intelligent, and that's what I did. Had I expressed similar opinions about Cassander, there might have been discussion, but not dissension.
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: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.
I was asked to justify why I don't agree that Alexander was particularly intelligent. And I have. The arguments, though, simply get waved away. In his case even a poor decision, like the one to introduce proskynesis at his court, is considered evidence that he was highly intelligent.
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 »

marcus wrote:Exactly. That is the exact point I am making.

According to your argument, these bad decisions show us that Alexander wasn't particularly intelligent. Now you are acknowledging that he made some good decisions, which by the same boat must credit him with intelligence. He can only be one or the other, so which is it?
You're arguing as if a person with below average intelligence can never make good decisions. I doubt you truly believe that yourself. To me, Alexander's reasonable decisions don't by a long shot outweigh his bad ones. That's why I don't think he was particularly intelligent. As I said, I know of no other ancient leader that most would consider "great" who made as many equally disastrous decisions.
marcus wrote:All this I wrote was nothing to do with whether Alexander was "great" or not - it is in response to your statement that he was neither well educated nor particularly intelligent. The first is nonsense - of course he was well educated; the second might still be debated, but you don't seem to be able to make up your own mind!
The claim that I've said that Alexander was not well educated is simply untrue. I merely said I thought the "highly" in "highly educated" unnecessary. Only at the Alexander the great fansite would someone find such a statement something to get upset about. The statement that I think Alexander also made some good decisions and that I thus "don't seem to be able to make up my mind!" is more sophistry of the kind you claimed was only a "point" you were making.
marcus wrote:Not necessarily, is my contention. But, then again, this argument is never going to go anywhere. Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that Alexander was intelligent, even if he was misguided, petulant, lacking in common sense, etc. at times. You don't. I don't think that anything either of us says will convince the other. Fair enough.

ATB
On the last part, at least, we are in agreement.
There is no truth in history.
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 »

the_accursed wrote:You and others give Alexander credit for the Macedonian victories, and I don't. That's the difference. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Alexander was intelligent if one thinks he was crucial to the Macedonian victories.
The argument is fallacious; not to mention circular: I do not believe Alexander was "crucial" therefore he is unintelligent. QED.

Needless to say I disagree. Matters are rarely so simple no matter how much you believe so.

You make several points that I might (and do) agree with but your fundamentalist view of an historical personality that we really know little of reeks of the zealotry you seemingly despise.

Yes Alexander inherited a military "machine" from his father. It was well versed in war and a part of it was almost "professional". Although Nicator's contention that Alexander by changed the army by "reversing the role of infantry and cavalry" cannot stand, Alexander clearly made changes to this machine as his anabasis went on. Some of these were born of necessity; others were invention. The source material - never abounding or fulsome where I'd like - shows the adoption and use of troop types unknown to Philip. Yes, Alexander made errors: his frontal assault on the Persian Gates bulks large. Philip, too, made errors and it is only the paucity of the source tradition that sees such left to a "footnote" in Diodorus and single "stratagem" in Polyaenus.
Last edited by Paralus on Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
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 »

Paralus wrote:
the_accursed wrote:You and others give Alexander credit for the Macedonian victories, and I don't. That's the difference. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Alexander was intelligent if one thinks he was crucial to the Macedonian victories.
The argument is fallacious; not to mention circular: I do not believe Alexander was "crucial" therefore he is unintelligent. QED.

I don't think Alexander was unintelligent because he wasn't crucial. I think he was unintelligent because of the many poor decisions he made. I just don't, when I assess his intelligence, count the tactical decisions et c. in his favor, as I think the credit for those goes to Philip's generals. Not quite the same as your claim above.
Paralus wrote:Needless to say I disagree. Matters are rarely so simple no matter how much you believe so.

You make several points that I might (and do) agree with but your fundamentalist view of an historical personality we really know little of reeks of the zealotry you seemingly despise.

Alexander made changes to the military machine he inherited from his father. Some of these were born of necessity; others were invention. The source material - never abounding or fulsome where I'd like - shows the adoption and use of troop types unknown to Philip. Yes, Alexander made errors: his frontal assault on the Persian Gates bulks large. Philip, too, made errors and it is only the paucity of the source tradition that sees such left to a "footnote" in Diodorus and single "stratagem" in Polyaenus.
I should probably just keep some of my opinions to myself. I don't think it right to call me a "fundamentalist" or "zealot" though. People have been able to convince me here that I'm wrong. You yourself is such a person. Such as in the discussion about the battle of Chaeronea. I can be convinced, but not every time or by every argument.
There is no truth in history.
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 »

the_accursed wrote:I should probably just keep some of my opinions to myself.
Or stay out of certain arguments. Why? You argue a point well - even if I disagree with the point or, sometimes, the tactics - so to speak.

the_accursed wrote: I don't think it right to call me a "fundamentalist" or "zealot" though.
I am no great fan of the Macedonian conqueror;for me he is simply an historical character - an important one no doubt - that ushered in the age that is my fascination: the Diadochoi and the rest of the Hellenistic age. You, though, seem to have a visceral antipathy to the bloke. Such can cloud a view.

There was no intent to call you a "fundamentalist". I'd have to suggest that if some hereabouts are Alexander "pop fans" then you are the antithesis. Your antipathy is almost an anti-zealotry.
the_accursed wrote:People have been able to convince me here that I'm wrong. You yourself is such a person. Such as in the discussion about the battle of Chaeronea.
I'd like to take credit for that but credit where it's due: Paul Rahe intially raised that matter. He is, to my mind, totally correct. Minor M Markle has to posit a cavalry sarisa - the length of the infantry version - for Alexander to lead that "charge" against the Sacred Band: the only sarisae used on the field that day according to him! He then goes on to argue that Alexander very rarely used the sarisa (the only time being at Gaugamela). Odd how the "court historian" (Kallisthenes) has him advance his sarisa-armed phalanx against Darius at Issos or that Alexander orders his hypaspists (and other infantry of the 4,000 that will have crossed the Danube with him) to flatten the grain with their "sarisae" held angled in front them (tois pezois plagiais tais sarisais epiklinontas ton siton... Arr 1.4.1.).

Clearly Alexander felt the need to take sarisae to the mountains of Thrace and across the Danube...
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
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 »

Paralus wrote:
the_accursed wrote:I should probably just keep some of my opinions to myself.
Or stay out of certain arguments. Why? You argue a point well - even if I disagree with the point or, sometimes, the tactics - so to speak.
I'm going to have to do that. I have written what I believe is a reasonably good post about the Maedi revolt and Alexander's first battle. I think there's a good reason - based on a source - to believe it never happened. Hopefully that discussion will not cause any dissension. Will have to wait until after my vacation, though. I respect the way you manage to express your opinions, opinions that I often agree with, without causing havoc. I'm going to have to try to learn to do the same.
Paralus wrote:I am no great fan of the Macedonian conqueror;for me he is simply an historical character - an important one no doubt - that ushered in the age that is my fascination: the Diadochoi and the rest of the Hellenistic age. You, though, seem to have a visceral antipathy to the bloke. Such can cloud a view.

There was no intent to call you a "fundamentalist". I'd have to suggest that if some hereabouts are Alexander "pop fans" then you are the antithesis. Your antipathy is almost an anti-zealotry..
There's truth to this. I am the antithesis to the kind of person who lights candles to commemorate his death. It's not just Alexander I feel a certain antipathy towards though. It's also the romanticism that surrounds this king and the arguments made to justify it. Even so, I really don't like this kind of dissension. Stays with me in an unhealthy way. I appreciate your input, Paralus.
Paralus wrote:
the_accursed wrote:People have been able to convince me here that I'm wrong. You yourself is such a person. Such as in the discussion about the battle of Chaeronea.
I'd like to take credit for that but credit where it's due: Paul Rahe intially raised that matter. He is, to my mind, totally correct. Minor M Markle has to posit a cavalry sarisa - the length of the infantry version - for Alexander to lead that "charge" against the Sacred Band: the only sarisae used on the field that day according to him! He then goes on to argue that Alexander very rarely used the sarisa (the only time being at Gaugamela). Odd how the "court historian" (Kallisthenes) has him advance his sarisa-armed phalanx against Darius at Issos or that Alexander orders his hypaspists (and other infantry of the 4,000 that will have crossed the Danube with him) to flatten the grain with their "sarisae" held in front them.
You argued your point well. But it was not that Alexander fought on foot that I disagreed on. It had to do with his role in that battle. Either way, I was wrong. As for how Alexander participated in that battle, I agree that he most likely fought on foot.
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:
marcus wrote:Exactly. That is the exact point I am making.

According to your argument, these bad decisions show us that Alexander wasn't particularly intelligent. Now you are acknowledging that he made some good decisions, which by the same boat must credit him with intelligence. He can only be one or the other, so which is it?
You're arguing as if a person with below average intelligence can never make good decisions. I doubt you truly believe that yourself. To me, Alexander's reasonable decisions don't by a long shot outweigh his bad ones. That's why I don't think he was particularly intelligent. As I said, I know of no other ancient leader that most would consider "great" who made as many equally disastrous decisions.
No, I'm not saying that a person with below average intelligance can never make good decisions. But you appear to be saying that because he occasionally made poor decisions then he cannot be of higher than average intelligence. That is the point that I am arguing, which you seem unwilling to concede.
the_accursed wrote:
marcus wrote:All this I wrote was nothing to do with whether Alexander was "great" or not - it is in response to your statement that he was neither well educated nor particularly intelligent. The first is nonsense - of course he was well educated; the second might still be debated, but you don't seem to be able to make up your own mind!
The claim that I've said that Alexander was not well educated is simply untrue. I merely said I thought the "highly" in "highly educated" unnecessary. Only at the Alexander the great fansite would someone find such a statement something to get upset about. The statement that I think Alexander also made some good decisions and that I thus "don't seem to be able to make up my mind!" is more sophistry of the kind you claimed was only a "point" you were making.
Apologies if I have misrepresented what you were saying. I'm not sure I see what the difference is between "well educated" and "highly educated" must be.

If you think I am upset by that statement, then you are wrong. Perhaps others are, which is a shame.

I don't consider Pothos to be a "fan" site, perhaps others do. But I can assure you that if I thought it was a place just for "fans", then I wouldn't spend so much time working on and with it. It is this sort of discussion/argument that makes Pothos interesting.

And please stop accusing me of "sophistry". If you are going to use that every time I attempt to show where I think the weakness in your argument is, then we are both wasting our time. Surely I am entitled to show where I consider the false syllogisms or other weaknesses in your argument are; if not, then there is clearly no point in trying to continue these discussions.
the_accursed wrote:
marcus wrote:Not necessarily, is my contention. But, then again, this argument is never going to go anywhere. Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that Alexander was intelligent, even if he was misguided, petulant, lacking in common sense, etc. at times. You don't. I don't think that anything either of us says will convince the other. Fair enough.

ATB
On the last part, at least, we are in agreement.
:D :D

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:No, I'm not saying that a person with below average intelligance can never make good decisions. But you appear to be saying that because he occasionally made poor decisions then he cannot be of higher than average intelligence. That is the point that I am arguing, which you seem unwilling to concede.
Alexander made too many absolutely disastrous decisions for me to be able to consider him intelligent. Decisions that I think the average Macedonian would have been able to avoid making. You though likely give him significant credit for the military victories of the Macedonian army. Note that I do not, and that this affects my assessment of his intelligence.

As for the rest of this discussion...if you don't mind, I'm just going to drop out of it. Needless to say, I still think Alexander was a half-wit. But from now on, I'm only going to think it.
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 »

So is the original question in the thread too complex to get straight answers or can we take a poll on who the ''greater' king was, and who the 'better' king was?
Id have to go with Alexander as the 'Greater', and Philip as the 'better'. Alexander gets the 'greater' in my eyes just because of the sheer scale of everything he did. His accomplishments have eclipsed just about any other conqueror in history as far as I'm concerned.
Philip seemed much more down to earth and rational. He had to be in order to accomplish what he wanted. He didn't have the luxury of thinking on epic scales like Alexander did. And he was a very intelligent individual. Which helped him achieve much of what he set out to do in his life. If the world had him for another twenty years it would be a very different place today. I think the bigger his accomplishments became, the bigger ideas he would have had for his empire.
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 »

the_accursed wrote:There's truth to this. I am the antithesis to the kind of person who lights candles to commemorate his death. It's not just Alexander I feel a certain antipathy towards though. It's also the romanticism that surrounds this king and the arguments made to justify it.
I absolutely agree. The deconstruction of the "Philosopher in arms" and the "Civiliser of Men" seems to be under attack nowadays as the pendulum begins its swing back. One might have though that recent attempts at empire (economic an hegemonic) might have tempered such a view: "democratisers in arms".

At various times I have been termed the "Badian" or "Bosworth" of the site. I have no issue with that other than that Brian Bosworth and the estate of Ersnt Badian should be most put out by what is an egregious comparison.
the_accursed wrote: Even so, I really don't like this kind of dissension. Stays with me in an unhealthy way. I appreciate your input, Paralus.
You said similar many, many posts ago. I know what it is that you refer to. Trust me: there really are only the few or the one here to whom "it has all been revealed". The rest of us actually tend to discuss and not hold grudges.
the_accursed wrote:People have been able to convince me here that I'm wrong. You yourself is such a person. Such as in the discussion about the battle of Chaeronea.
I'd like to take credit for that but credit where it's due: Paul Rahe intially raised that matter. He is, to my mind, totally correct. Minor M Markle has to posit a cavalry sarisa - the length of the infantry version - for Alexander to lead that "charge" against the Sacred Band: the only sarisae used on the field that day according to him! He then goes on to argue that Alexander very rarely used the sarisa (the only time being at Gaugamela). Odd how the "court historian" (Kallisthenes) has him advance his sarisa-armed phalanx against Darius at Issos or that Alexander orders his hypaspists (and other infantry of the 4,000 that will have crossed the Danube with him) to flatten the grain with their "sarisae" held in front them.
Last edited by Paralus on Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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 »

Paralus wrote:
the_accursed wrote:You and others give Alexander credit for the Macedonian victories, and I don't. That's the difference. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Alexander was intelligent if one thinks he was crucial to the Macedonian victories.
The argument is fallacious; not to mention circular: I do not believe Alexander was "crucial" therefore he is unintelligent. QED.

Needless to say I disagree. Matters are rarely so simple no matter how much you believe so.

You make several points that I might (and do) agree with but your fundamentalist view of an historical personality that we really know little of reeks of the zealotry you seemingly despise.

Yes Alexander inherited a military "machine" from his father. It was well versed in war and a part of it was almost "professional". Although Nicator's contention that Alexander by changed the army by "reversing the role of infantry and cavalry" cannot stand, Alexander clearly made changes to this machine as his anabasis went on. Some of these were born of necessity; others were invention. The source material - never abounding or fulsome where I'd like - shows the adoption and use of troop types unknown to Philip. Yes, Alexander made errors: his frontal assault on the Persian Gates bulks large. Philip, too, made errors and it is only the paucity of the source tradition that sees such left to a "footnote" in Diodorus and single "stratagem" in Polyaenus.
I forget where I read that...Fuller maybe? Regardless, there is 'perhaps' some bit of truth behind it as the phalangytes appeared to be relegated to 2nd class roles with the elevation in status given to the cavalry under ATG. This I would qualify by pointing out that this is how the rank and file foot soldier likely came to see themselves after a time. This opens up another line of inquiry concerning favoritism and it's effects on morale...both positive and negative.

Whatever the case, it is clear that ATG still regarded his infantry highly as they were obviously indispensable. ATG is attested to having utilized archers and slingers extensively. I haven't read that concerning Philip, though, my knowledge of Philip is not nearly as extensive as ATG.
Later Nicator

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

The Epic of Alexander
Post Reply