Was Philip II Even Greater than Alexander the Great?

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: Was Philip II Even Greater than Alexander the Great?

Post by sikander »

Greetings,

Good question. In a way, the two cannot be compared because the accomplishments were so different. Philip was a local king who used
various means, both fair and foul in all likelihood, to build up a kingdom that was also shaped from the work of other men. Alexander
was a king of an empire, but he, too, accomplished what he did by following a path first began by another.

Both were intelligent, both were ambitious and had the intelligence and acumen to feed their ambitions, both were determined to fulfill their
dreams- two possibly very divergent dreams- and both had human flaws that led to the failure of those dreams.

Regards,
Sikander
Ngs
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:45 am

Re: Was Philip II Even Greater than Alexander the Great?

Post by Ngs »

Well, Philip was a better military brain, better at administration and overall a better ruler. He had plans to go into Persia but he died before he could actually invade. So, history gave Alexander the sort of more starry role of the conqueror. But, I feel that if Philip had been alive he would have actually held onto the kingdom and sort of managed the Asian empire better. Just my two cents.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: Was Philip II Even Greater than Alexander the Great?

Post by sikander »

Greetings NGS,

"Well, Philip was a better military brain..."

I don't know- I think Alexander was the better military mind... but I also think he took on too much too fast ..

"..., better at administration..."

It would have been interesting to see what Alexander would have done if he had lived. He would have had to undertaken the task of administering a much larger kingdom/empire, would have been dealing with equally ambitious and powerful men over a wider area and would have had to maintain a much larger army composed of a diverse set of people from different cultures, beliefs, experiences, and maintain a much larger border. Philip had time on his hands- times in which he could consolidate and dominate a smallish kingdom, backed by men who had been tried and tested.

"... and overall a better ruler."

I am curious how you measure and compare the two. Could you share your thoughts on this?

" He had plans to go into Persia but he died before he could actually invade..."

I agree with this, that he had plans. Do you think he would have just hit Persia and returned to Macedon or do you think he would have done the same as Alexander and moved on to capture the entire empire?

".. So, history gave Alexander the sort of more starry role of the conqueror. But, I feel that if Philip had been alive he would have actually held onto the kingdom and sort of managed the Asian empire better. Just my two cents."

But in Alexander, because he DID move on Persia, Alexander got the role of conqueror and he also got the condemnation as a megalomaniac, a man who overreached himself and all the other negative opinions historians and readers of history have given him. Is that because he didn't live to see what he would have made of his winnings? Would Philip be viewed any differently today had he lived?

The two men inherited different kingdoms under different circumstances- Philip made a standing army, Alexander had to keep it occupied. Philip "inherited" a kingdom, his son inherited the kingdom with strong contenders for the throne. Philip had to be ruthless in his building and holding on to his kingdom, Alexander had to become ruthless to hold on to an empire he was creating. O wonder what Philip would have become and done had he lived and conquered Persia... This is why their stories are different and hard to compare, in my opinion.

But I am interested in your take on things, if you don't mind.

Regards,
Sikander
Ngs
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:45 am

Re: Was Philip II Even Greater than Alexander the Great?

Post by Ngs »

I will be brief. I am no expert, just a student of history. So whatever I wrote was what I have gathered from readings. Alexander inherited a lot of the experienced advisors and military generals, tactics and military formations, from his father. Philip actually bothered to rule and administer whatever kingdom he had unlike Alexander who had no great vision on how to actually administer to his diverse and growing subjects' needs. The picture I have received from my readings doesn't leave me with a very good opinion of Alexander as a whole. Yes, he was great as a conqueror and brilliant in flashes. But he shone too bright and so burnt out too fast.
Post Reply