Moderator: pothos moderators
And, even before that, Alexander had put down the revolt of the Maedi, and had at least visited Philip at the siege of Byzantium, and campaigned into Thrace with Philip.bessusww wrote:inexperiences son?
is that the same inexperienced son,who crushed the thebans at cheronaia
You beat me to it Bessusww. Not only Cheronea but all the times he went against the advise of his generals and succeeded. Also, I do not believe the greatest army of that time would follow a mediocre general to the ends of earth the way they did. And would the generals follow him? Any sign of weakness was jumped on in those days. Precisely the reason why he made sure to subdue greece before embarking on his Persian campaign.bessusww wrote:inexperiences son?
is that the same inexperienced son,who crushed the thebans at cheronaia
A battle at which the newbie was surrounded by Philip's most experienced generals. That Alexander as usual got the credit for their work, though, is unsurprising. No one even bothered to specify who these generals were. That was unimportant.bessusww wrote:inexperiences son?
is that the same inexperienced son,who crushed the thebans at cheronaia
It's easy to look "able" when you have the greatest army in the world, world class generals to command it for you and comparatively weak opponents. Under such circumstances anyone can be a "military genius".marcus wrote:And, even before that, Alexander had put down the revolt of the Maedi, and had at least visited Philip at the siege of Byzantium, and campaigned into Thrace with Philip.
To be fair, though, he was still relatively inexperienced ... although he soon showed that he had the ability ...
ATB
Hard to argue I think that Alexander wasn't a "novice" when he became king. And had Persia won at Gaugamela, Alexander's failure to pursue Darius after Issus would have seemed a disastrous mistake. You say I have a chip on my shoulder. I say I look at Alexander's career from a logical and minimalistic perspective, as opposed to the perspective of a fan. Here's the problem: How come the Macedonian army performed as brilliantly under Alexander as it had done under Philip? Philip had decades of experience. Alexander didn't. But those decades of experience had turned the Macedonian army into the greatest army in the world. Apply Occam's razor to the problem and the simplest solution isn't that Alexander must have been a military genius. The simplest solution is that his inexperience didn't matter.bessusww wrote:I think the Occursed has a chip on his shoulder with Alexander. With regard to Alexanders great generals....Its well documented that he just about ignored every bit of advice given by Parmenio and what do you know he still won. Regarding Chasing Darius after Issus? Only an incompetent general would go chasing after some one without first Securing your rear supply chains etc as Elexander did all along the coast of Asia Minor minimising any counter offensive from the Persians...Alexander did all this. I doubt the great Generals had the ammount of experience with Siege warfare as Alexander taught them with a great record in it. Its fare to say that the Macedonian war machine in my opinion was amongst the most rounded and complete Military Engine of history...From Its fantastic Thessalian Macedonian Cavalry...to the Skirmishers and Phalanx troops...Even the Romans never had such a rounded package. Until they them selves used Mernenary Cavalry. The Army was brilliant it was a great tool and Alexander used the tool brilliantly. Finally I doubt any of the Macedonian elder generals knew about let alone saw Elephants Alexander brought about how to defeat Elephants long before Hannibal tried to terrorise the Romans with them. Every thing Stemms back and moves on...Philip would not have developed a military army in the First place had he not learned from the Great Theban General Epamonindas. Alexander was and still is inspirational to military Schools and generals throughout history. Hannibal,Julius Caesar,Napleon to name a few and with such endorsement any childish remarks about Alexander been a novive are really silly
For those interested, the Battles BC series "Alexander: Lord of War" has Mr. Gabriel featured quite prominently. Nothing to do with the statement regarding Philip, but just thought I'd mention it.amyntoros wrote:No, that's not my statement (although it is a good subject for debate) but the title of a new book by Richard A. Gabriel.
Here's the link to the BMCR Review. Should be an interesting read and I'd like to see how it compares to Ian Worthington's Philip II of Macedonia.
The most provocative statement in the review is this: "Here Gabriel argues that it was the Persian King who was behind Philip’s murder and rejects the idea that Alexander was behind his father’s death (240-42)." It's not a new argument and I'm not sure how convincing it may be in this book. Am curious to find out.
Best regards,
Good point here Bessusww. 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. Alexander's genius was likely recognized by his peers well before he came to the throne and perhaps that is why Philip was sent packing to usher the young king in before the window of opportunity closed. 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. It has to be seen from a little business - big business perspective. And I think most pothosians are also Philip fans.bessusww wrote:I think the Occursed has a chip on his shoulder with Alexander.
With regard to Alexanders great generals....Its well documented that he just about ignored every bit of advice given by Parmenio and what do you know he still won.
Precisely indeed. 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.spitamenes wrote:bessusww wrote:
inexperiences son?
is that the same inexperienced son,who crushed the thebans at cheronaia
You beat me to it Bessusww. Not only Cheronea but all the times he went against the advise of his generals and succeeded. Also, I do not believe the greatest army of that time would follow a mediocre general to the ends of earth the way they did. And would the generals follow him? Any sign of weakness was jumped on in those days. Precisely the reason why he made sure to subdue greece before embarking on his Persian campaign.
Indeed breathtaking in scope. Not, then, "...a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world". But no, not "extreme consternation". Rather I thought and think your judgment of Philip, and your theory, was entirely wrong.Nicator wrote:Accursed,
Wow, what extreme consternation over something so ill contrived. Even Alexander would have admitted that his father was, at least partly, responsible for much of what he accomplished. It is common to view the entire genre as the Phil-Alexandrian empire because one could be separated from the accomplishments of the other. Yes, Philip worked miracles in his tenure as King of Macedon. Developing the army to a height never before seen in the ancient world (with the help of the Theban military philosophy), Consolidating power over all of Greece and making forays into Persia before his death...all breathtaking in scope. He used diplomacy and intrigue along with military and economic leverage to the utmost effect to bring his goals into being. It's hard to say enough about what Philip II was able to accomplish. His seemingly intrinsic knowledge of monarchical leadership was perhaps the most important skill that he passed along to Alexander.
Without equal in your opinion. Myself I note that the Macedonian army was the best in the world, and that it had several very experienced, world class commanders. That such an army would systematically defeat its weaker opponents is...exactly what one would expect. Alexander is no more needed to explain the victories of the Macedonian army after he became king than he's needed to explain their victories before he became king. But as I said, I do credit him with having been a great cheerleader. Give him a skirt and a couple of pom pons and he'd cheerlead the heck out of anyone.Nicator wrote:But your argument is strange to me in that Alexander's military and tactical capabilities were without equal in the ancient world. Would 'anyone' have accomplished what he did with the same ensemble arrayed before him? I don't think so.
so I am responding to the comment and not directing this at anyone's specific argument."...a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that spent too much time creating problems of succession with numerous concubines (a whole harem) and not enough time planning the subjugation of the known world".
(OK, so I know Alexander did eventually have children, but one might consider it to have been rather late ...)Diodorus 17.16.2
Antipater and Parmenion advised him to produce an heir first and then to turn his hand to so ambitious an enterprise, but Alexander was eager for action and opposed to any postponement, and spoke against them. It would be a disgrace, he pointed out, for one who had been appointed by Greece to command the war, and who had inherited his father's invincible forces, to sit at home celebrating a marriage and awaiting the birth of children.
Curtius 5.7.2
At the very time that his enemy and rival for imperial power was preparing to resume hostilities, and when the conquered nations, only recently subdued, still had scant respect for his authority, he was attending day-time drinking parties at which women were present - not, indeed, such women as it was a crime to violate, but courtesans who had been leading disreputable lives with the soldiers.
Curtius 6.2.2
There were parties early in the day; drinking and mad revelry throughout the night; games; women by the score. It was a general decline into the ways of the foreigner. By affecting these, as though they were superior to those of his own country, Alexander so offended the sensibilities and eyes of his people that most of his friends began to regard him as an enemy.
Curtius 6.6.8
The royal quarters had a complement of 365 concubines, the number Darius had possessed, and along with them were hordes of eunuchs practised in playing the woman's part.
Diodorus 17.77.6-7
In addition to all this, he added concubines to his retinue in the manner of Dareius, in number not less than the days of the year and outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women of Asia. Each night these paraded about the couch of the king so that he might select the one with whom he would lie that night.
Justin 12.3.10
To copy the Persians in their excesses as well as their dress, he divided his nights among the troops of royal concubines, women of superlative beauty and noble birth.
Suda (A 1121)
Having subdued all races he lost his mind and succumbed to the pleasures of the body, putting on Persian dress and being attended by myriad youths, and using 300 concubines, so that he changed the entire Macedonian royal way of life into Persian ways and annulled those of his own people.
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?Nicator wrote:He was a hobbled, one-eyed drunk that caroused with 'too many' women and boys.
It wasn't a fiasco. A fiasco is a complete failure. Philip's marriage to Cleopatra was a total success: politically, he ensured that Attalus was tied to him, and he also gained another child, a daughter, who could be very useful as a political tool when she was old enough to be married. It is generally accepted that Cleopatra didn't have a son, so there was no threat to Alexander there; and even if she had had a son, there was no way that a twenty-year-old Alexander could be pushed aside by a baby, and probably not for a good sixteen or so years, by which time Philip might well have been dead anyway (he was already 46, remember, when he was assassinated), and Alexander would have gained so much more experience on the battlefield that very few would have gainsaid his claim to the throne.Nicator wrote: his latest fiasco with Attalus' ward or niece Cleopatra and her son.
I have no desire to 'rubbish' Philip either. As I said, I think most pothosians are Philip fans...myself included. My original reply was meant to provoke thought on what could have happened behind the scenes to 'allow' Philip's assassination/murder to take place. It was not meant to indite Alexander or Olympias either. It was a finger pointed at the unknown and unrecorded power players behind the scenes. Hence, the comment about leaping from the source material again by extrapolating from the evidence.marcus wrote: agree with you, overall, that it is unfair to rubbish Alexander; but I do think we should be careful of being dismissive of Philip, which would be totally unfair to Philip!
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.marcus wrote: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?
As stated above, I'm not convinced that Alexander OR Olympias had anything to do with it. Though this does not preclude the possibility that they were. The issue I was pointing out was that Philip was muddying up the succession line to such an extent that it seemed someone may have wanted to clarify things a bit. Not sure why you would say my analysis doesn't hold true. What analysis?marcus wrote:I'm also rather puzzled about how his sexual behaviour with women led to his downfall, unless you are convinced that Alexander and/or Olympias were behind his assassination on account of his marriage to Cleopatra. Even Philip's 'carousing' with boys (or young men) cannot necessarily be blamed, if one follows the line that Pausanias wanted revenge for Philip's taking no action against Attalus - it was the lack of justice, rather than Philip's sexual behaviour, that prompted the murder.
(Just to be clear, this is just one explanation, but I'm making the point that your analysis doesn't necessarily hold true.)
The perspective I'm angling at here is that since Philip was knocked off, it was a failure. His actions may have put him on the wrong side of the power-brokers behind the scenes. And that may have been his downfall.marcus wrote:It wasn't a fiasco. A fiasco is a complete failure. Philip's marriage to Cleopatra was a total success: politically, he ensured that Attalus was tied to him, and he also gained another child, a daughter, who could be very useful as a political tool when she was old enough to be married. It is generally accepted that Cleopatra didn't have a son, so there was no threat to Alexander there; and even if she had had a son, there was no way that a twenty-year-old Alexander could be pushed aside by a baby, and probably not for a good sixteen or so years, by which time Philip might well have been dead anyway (he was already 46, remember, when he was assassinated), and Alexander would have gained so much more experience on the battlefield that very few would have gainsaid his claim to the throne.
I agree with you, overall, that it is unfair to rubbish Alexander; but I do think we should be careful of being dismissive of Philip, which would be totally unfair to Philip!
But there is no indication that Philip's physical capabilities were impaired by his wounds. After all, he won Chaeronea only two years before his death. And his leading general in Asia at the time of his death was a man who was almost certainly some good few years older than Philip. So if people accepted Parmenion as a general, why would they not accept Philip? I cannot see how anyone would have considered him unfit to command the invasion of Asia. And there is no indication that the invasion was going to be a long and protracted affair.Nicator wrote: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.marcus wrote: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?
But my contention is that Philip was not muddying the succession line. Even if Cleopatra's child was a boy (and as Justin is the only source who says that it was, it is highly dubious - and I assume you will now say something about the source material, but the fact is that, had it been a boy, the sources would have said something, more unanimously, and the other sources all say it was a girl), how does that muddy the succession?Nicator wrote:As stated above, I'm not convinced that Alexander OR Olympias had anything to do with it. Though this does not preclude the possibility that they were. The issue I was pointing out was that Philip was muddying up the succession line to such an extent that it seemed someone may have wanted to clarify things a bit.
Well, I suppose you've just answered that one ...Nicator wrote: Not sure why you would say my analysis doesn't hold true. What analysis?
There is no way that anyone can conclude that Philip's marriage to Cleopatra was a failure. Cleopatra gave him a useful ally in Attalus, and she gave him a child. That's a success. You cannot call it a failure if, according to your interpretation, someone else didn't like it.Nicator wrote:The perspective I'm angling at here is that since Philip was knocked off, it was a failure. His actions may have put him on the wrong side of the power-brokers behind the scenes. And that may have been his downfall.
The sex of the child isn't irrelevant at all. And why would the marriage be a big issue, when Philip had already married six times before? You need to explain your reasoning.Nicator wrote:Not that I disagree with you about the sex of Cleo's child...though it certainly could have been a boy...we'll just never know. Anyway, it is irrelevant. The marriage was the big issue and if there wasn't a boy yet, the chance that a boy was on the way would have been enough reason to take action.
I do indeed use the word "assassinated", but I will happily say "murdered" instead if it makes you feel better. But again you appear to contradict yourself. It can't be "just a murder by a jealous lover", and at the same time be an orchestrated removal of Philip by these "unknown power-brokers", hence an "assassination". It has to be one or the other.Nicator wrote:You keep using the word 'Assassinated'. This is also questionable. As you know, it could have just been a murder by a jealous lover. Alexander was ready now...and in 5 years, this prodigious athlete, educated by Aristotle, could be taken out by Philip or his cronies altogether. It's just possible that (here I go again) the unknown power-brokers behind the scenes felt action was necessary. And on that blue-blooded marriage, inevitable.
