Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[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.

I have to look at the track record here. And how many collossal decisions he had to make on a daily basis. Logistical decisions alone had to have been through the roof. He had to make good decisions everyday just to keep the Macedonian machine rolling.

[the_accursed]

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.

That conclusion doesn't follow logically from what I've stated, no.

[spitamenes]

"The level of Alexanders intelligence should in my opinion be inferred from his actions and they're consequences..." is Alexander a special case? Or do you feel that everyones intelligence should be inferred from they're actions and the consequences of those actions?

[the_accursed]

"The level of Alexanders intelligence should in my opinion be inferred from his actions and they're consequences..." is Alexander a special case? Or do you feel that everyones intelligence should be inferred from they're actions and the consequences of those actions?

No, Alexander is not a special case. I would judge any historical leader the same way.

[Paralus]

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

Why "slightly"??

The fact of the matter is that Persia and Athens - the power of Greece at the time as far as Persian is concerned - came to a detente after the great stalemate of Cyrpus in 450: the "Peace of Kallias". This delineated clear spheres of influence for both camps which were never challenged untill the rediculous decision of Athens to support Amorges in 413/12. Sparta defeated Athens with Persian (and especially Cyrus') aid and that alliance allowed the King to reclaim his Asian possessions (including the Greek cities). These then became the irreducible price of any treaty (that of Antalkidas for example) that followed. The King ruthlessly asserted his claim to his land Empire and that Empire - from the Peloponnesian War's end onwards - always included Hellespontine Phrygia. It was only when Philip meddled in the major cities on the opposite shore that the King deigned to take an interest.

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.

Arrhidaeus can be excused as any real contender: Alexander, given he was "mentally incompetent" and no threat, let him live. He only comes into play because there is no viable direct Argead heir. Indeed it is the phalanx that decides that Phil's dill is far preferable to an unborn half-caste. Heracles was never a starter and, eventually, the means to the end of Polperchon.

The "lost child" of Roxane is more difficult. I tend to think this historical. There is no reason to suspect that the union was unproductive (as Alexander IV shows) and, as I've remarked above, the survival of children in antiquity is nothing near to today. I would also remark that the behaviour of the marshals and army at Babylon indicate this. The phalanx infantry wanted Philip's son (incompetent that he was) both because he was Philip's and the fact that he was very, very extant; the marshals wanting the yet to be born child recognised (in one form or another - this is not the place to go through the three stages of the "Babylonian Settlement") for very, very different reasons.

Everyone - even in antiquity - is different. Fact is that Alexander was very different from his forebears: the succession did not ever bulk large in his thinking. The source tradition that we've received indicates this clearly. Before Alexander Macedon is plagued by any number of Argead contenders; after Alexander Macedon is assailed by any number of pretenders. The noble "houses" of Macedon, never always wont to tow the line and some originally "kings" in their own right, would never be slow to exploit a king remiss in reproduction.

What also is forgotten in this discussion is the nature of Macedonian kingship. If Philip's rule was largely autocratic - and it was - then Alexander's, by his end, was "despotic" by both Macedonian and Greek standards. It was this change in the nature of the relationship between the king and his nobles, as well as the "rank and file", that fueled the increasing tension throughout the anabasis. The Macedonian nobility, not slow to take heed, followed suit: what was good for the departed god was good enough for his "angels". Antipater felt secure in handing over the regency - as a personal fiat - to Polyperchon. Antigonus was most pleased to be welcomed as "the king of Asia" and to distribute satrapies without any reference to the kings.

Alexander had, indeed, set the table. His marshals, well versed, set about dismantling that which none, individually, could ever own.

[marcus]

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

Why "slightly"??

Because I assume that "doorstep" was meant metaphorically ...

[Nikas]

Perhaps I should have clarified what was meant by highly educated. It appears Philip took exceptional care to ensure nothing but the best for his heir. Imagine today one of our parents arranging for us the privilege of being tutored by the pre-eminent expert in their respective fields, a leading philosopher, biologist, physicist, and so on and so forth and you should get the picture of what is was like to have Aristotle come to teach the elite of the Macedonian youth:

"He bade Alexander give heed to Aristotle, and study philosophy, "so that", as he said, "you may not do a great many things of the sort that I am sorry to have done." Plutarch, Moralia

As for his intelligence, aside that there is no indication anywhere that Alexander was a blockhead, and even if we allow that an unintelligent person could have conducted the campaign he did (which I cannot fathom) he did at one point chastise Aristotle himself for sharing some of the more esoteric concepts of his lessons to the mere ordinary folk. If he didn't even understand it himself, I doubt he would have cared. He was also known for devouring the latest books (papyri) on the latest advances that he had shipped to his headquarters from Greece during his campaign.

[spitamenes]

Perhaps I should have clarified what was meant by highly educated. It appears Philip took exceptional care to ensure nothing but the best for his heir. Imagine today one of our parents arranging for us the privilege of being tutored by the pre-eminent expert in their respective fields, a leading philosopher, biologist, physicist, and so on and so forth and you should get the picture of what is was like to have Aristotle come to teach the elite of the Macedonian youth:

"He bade Alexander give heed to Aristotle, and study philosophy, "so that", as he said, "you may not do a great many things of the sort that I am sorry to have done." Plutarch, Moralia

As for his intelligence, aside that there is no indication anywhere that Alexander was a blockhead, and even if we allow that an unintelligent person could have conducted the campaign he did (which I cannot fathom) he did at one point chastise Aristotle himself for sharing some of the more esoteric concepts of his lessons to the mere ordinary folk. If he didn't even understand it himself, I doubt he would have cared. He was also known for devouring the latest books (papyri) on the latest advances that he had shipped to his headquarters from Greece during his campaign.

Very true Nikas. I don't think Philip would have considered Alexander for his heir if he was a blockhead. Much less hire Aristotle to teach him, at a great price too. Philip had to have believed strongly in Alexander to do all this for him. And Alexander seemed to have even impressed Aristotle himself. They kept in touch long after Alexanders school days. If he was unintelligent I think Aristotle would have simply done his job and left.

[the_accursed]

Perhaps I should have clarified what was meant by highly educated. It appears Philip took exceptional care to ensure nothing but the best for his heir. Imagine today one of our parents arranging for us the privilege of being tutored by the pre-eminent expert in their respective fields, a leading philosopher, biologist, physicist, and so on and so forth and you should get the picture of what is was like to have Aristotle come to teach the elite of the Macedonian youth:

"He bade Alexander give heed to Aristotle, and study philosophy, "so that", as he said, "you may not do a great many things of the sort that I am sorry to have done." Plutarch, Moralia

As for his intelligence, aside that there is no indication anywhere that Alexander was a blockhead, and even if we allow that an unintelligent person could have conducted the campaign he did (which I cannot fathom) he did at one point chastise Aristotle himself for sharing some of the more esoteric concepts of his lessons to the mere ordinary folk. If he didn't even understand it himself, I doubt he would have cared. He was also known for devouring the latest books (papyri) on the latest advances that he had shipped to his headquarters from Greece during his campaign.

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.

As for Alexander's intelligence, I personally give him very little credit for his military campaigns. In these matters he could rely upon the experience and judgement of Philip's generals. As I wrote in a previous post in this thread, Philip once said he took greater pride in his diplomatic accomplishments than his military ones, as he didn't owe his diplomatic accomplishments to anyone but himself. Alexander's intelligence should in my opinion be assessed from that point of view. Before he became king, Alexander meddled in Philip’s business and got several of his closest friends exiled from Macedonia. A Macedonian with average intelligence could probably have foreseen Philip’s very negative reaction. Not Alexander; he had to try it and have it blow up in his face. Then Alexander became king and rejected the advice to father an heir before the campaign against Persia. Again, a Macedonian with average intelligence would probably have seen the wisdom in the advice. Not Alexander. He refused, and it blew up, not so much in his face as in the faces of the Macedonian people. Alexander proclaimed himself a god. A Macedonian with average intelligence would probably have understood that doing so would only result in ridicule and contempt. Not Alexander. He tried to introduce proskynesis at his court. A Macedonian with average intelligence would probably have been able to foresee the Macedonian reaction to such folly. Not Alexander. He marched through the Gedrosian desert and lost much of his army there. Not because such a march was a strategic necessity, but because Cyrus and Semiramis were thought to have tried it. I doubt a Macedonian with even average intelligence would ever have done the same – at least not for such a foolish reason. In fact, Alexander from time to time disregarded what was best from a strategic point of view because of a sudden "longing" to do something or see something. Many pothosians no doubt find this trait in him charming. Myself I find it immature. His judgement in appointing satraps also seems to have been at best mediocre. He seems to have had a knack for appointing corrupt people. He also surrounded himself with flatterers, and seems to have been, much of the time, incapable of seeing through their flattery. Not a sign of great intelligence.

In other words, I can’t agree that there’s "...no indication anywhere" that Alexander was stupid. Rather, in Alexander’s case such indications tend to not be attributed much, or even any, weight in assessments of his intelligence. Yes, he was a reader. This in itself is in my opinion of little importance. Reading poetry and plays did not prevent Alexander from making the grave mistakes that he made, any more than reading poetry and plays made Philip the great king that he was. Alexander must have read about many despotic leaders and still became one himself. And whatever esoteric knowledge it was that he got from Aristotle, it didn’t prevent him from getting his friends exiled or from getting Macedonians killed in the Gedrosian desert. These disasters were caused by his poor judgement.

Finally, I've got to say that I have no illusion that I'll be able to convince any pothosian that Alexander was a man with below average intelligence. I don't believe any argumentation can ever convince a pothosian (of those who believe Alexander was an intelligent man) of such a thing. I merely hold that opinion myself, for the reasons stated above. Thus my "not quite none of us".

[Nikas]

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.

As for Alexander's intelligence, I personally give him very little credit for his military campaigns. In these matters he could rely upon the experience and judgement of Philip's generals. As I wrote in a previous post in this thread, Philip once said he took greater pride in his diplomatic accomplishments than his military ones, as he didn't owe his diplomatic accomplishments to anyone but himself. Alexander's intelligence should in my opinion be assessed from that point of view. Before he became king, Alexander meddled in Philip’s business and got several of his closest friends exiled from Macedonia. A Macedonian with average intelligence could probably have foreseen Philip’s very negative reaction. Not Alexander; he had to try it and have it blow up in his face. Then Alexander became king and rejected the advice to father an heir before the campaign against Persia. Again, a Macedonian with average intelligence would probably have seen the wisdom in the advice. Not Alexander. He refused, and it blew up, not so much in his face as in the faces of the Macedonian people. Alexander proclaimed himself a god. A Macedonian with average intelligence would probably have understood that doing so would only result in ridicule and contempt. Not Alexander. He tried to introduce proskynesis at his court. A Macedonian with average intelligence would probably have been able to foresee the Macedonian reaction to such folly. Not Alexander. He marched through the Gedrosian desert and lost much of his army there. Not because such a march was a strategic necessity, but because Cyrus and Semiramis were thought to have tried it. I doubt a Macedonian with even average intelligence would ever have done the same – at least not for such a foolish reason. In fact, Alexander from time to time disregarded what was best from a strategic point of view because of a sudden "longing" to do something or see something. Many pothosians no doubt find this trait in him charming. Myself I find it immature. His judgement in appointing satraps also seems to have been at best mediocre. He seems to have had a knack for appointing corrupt people. He also surrounded himself with flatterers, and seems to have been, much of the time, incapable of seeing through their flattery. Not a sign of great intelligence.

In other words, I can’t agree that there’s "...no indication anywhere" that Alexander was stupid. Rather, in Alexander’s case such indications tend to not be attributed much, or even any, weight in assessments of his intelligence. Yes, he was a reader. This in itself is in my opinion of little importance. Reading poetry and plays did not prevent Alexander from making the grave mistakes that he made, any more than reading poetry and plays made Philip the great king that he was. Alexander must have read about many despotic leaders and still became one himself. And whatever esoteric knowledge it was that he got from Aristotle, it didn’t prevent him from getting his friends exiled or from getting Macedonians killed in the Gedrosian desert. These disasters were caused by his poor judgement.

Finally, I've got to say that I have no illusion that I'll be able to convince any pothosian that Alexander was a man with below average intelligence. I don't believe any argumentation can ever convince a pothosian (of those who believe Alexander was an intelligent man) of such a thing. I merely hold that opinion myself, for the reasons stated above. Thus my "not quite none of us".

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.

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.

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.

[Nicator]

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 also suggest that the vastness of ATG's enterprise necessitated forestalling the production of a viable heir until things calmed down. Barsine was being groomed in the Grecian ways while he continued the campaign. It seems likely, though not explicitly stated, that plans were already underway to make her his queen on his return. Rhoxanne was likely secured because of the need to pacify the Bactrian province. This, of course, was a page right out of Phil's book. 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.

A Macedonian queen would not make sense to ATGs program. He needed to be seen as the true Acheminid king. Securing an Asian for his wife was the only real way of doing that. I wonder how many of Philip's wives and mistresses spoke his language? I would bet most. ATG didn't have that luxury.

Perhaps the only mistake ATG made was in not living longer. If it was truly just an illness or disease then he had no choice. If it was an assassination, he made the mistake of not protecting himself.

As a side note, aren't we forgetting that ATG conquered nine tenths of known earth in 12 years? I guess that doesn't seem to count for anything in the aforementioned greatness scale? Also, the army that he began with was not the same army he ended with. Certainly, that vaunted nucleus was still intact, but the changes brought on due to attrition alone were likely more profound than we can know today. No simple 'cheerleader' could have made that work the way ATG certainly did.

[marcus]

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!

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.

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.

[Paralus]

Philip was forever in Europe...his whole mating paradigm was vastly different.

Philip's "mating paradigm" was something of a campaign and copulate rotation; he seems to have displayed a fevered fascination with "conceptive athletics" . The tradition with respect to Alexander's "paradigm" is one of fervid disinterest - particularly before the anabasis.

I also suggest that the vastness of ATG's enterprise necessitated forestalling the production of a viable heir until things calmed down.

Something that clearly didn't cool Philip's reproductive ardour even given the frenetic campaigning required to stabilise his kingdom let alone grow it.

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.

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.

Indeed. And again, the half-caste Alexander IV was still in the womb. If the Metz record of a prior lost child is correct - and there's no outstanding reason why it can't be - this can only have strengthened the marshals (and Perdiccas) in their pursuit of power in the vacuum. The first by this Iranian had not survived what chance the next?

A living heir in Macedonia is an entirely different matter. Such a "little darling" will have been under the protection of the Epirote funnel-web Olympias and the appointed regent in Europe, Antipater. Murdering such an heir would not be any easy task and could not be achieved from Babylon. Who would carry such out - Antipater? Why would he weaken his position by such an act? He would need to remove the Queen grandmother as well. That would be a hard sell to the Macedonians of the homeland.

[spitamenes]

,... the Epirote funnel-web Olympias...

[spitamenes]

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?