It's been a few weeks since I've had a chance to look up and breathe with the busiest interviewing schedule I've ever had. But, alas, a job is finally in the offing.
Accursed,
I'll begin by posting a bit from the wonderful opening page of Green...
"The story of Alexander the Great is inexorably bound up with that of his father, King Philip II, and with his country, Macedonia. Philip was a most remarkable and dominating figure in his own right; while Macedonia, as has recently been observed, 'was the first large territorial state with an effectively centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe'. Unless we understand this, and them, Alexander's career must remain for us no more than the progress of a comet, flaring in unparalleled majesty across the sky: a marvel, but incomprehensible. Genius Alexander had, and in full measure; yet even genius remains to a surprising extent the product of its environment. What Alexander was, Philip and Macedonia in great part made him, and it is with them that we must begin."
To be clear, this is the opening paragraph of Green's masterpiece on '
Alexander'. And like all truly excellent books, the opening line and paragraph set up a desire in the reader's mind to continue reading. The last sentence of this paragraph deserves another read...
"Genius Alexander had, and in full measure; yet even genius remains to a surprising extent the product of its environment. What Alexander was, Philip and Macedonia in great part made him, and it is with them that we must begin."
My question to you would be why are you attempting to bash Alexander for the sake of Philip? Is it your contention that Alexander had nothing to do with the victory at Guagamela? Was is NOT Alexander that devised the battle plan? The rolling box of phalanx designed to face out in all direction appears to have been an invention of Alexander's...not Philip. The 'Epaminondas Maneuver' was certainly bequeathed by Philip but the clever adaptation was born of Alexander. And I'll cede you this, if only because I have no point to prove one way or another, it was Parmenion's bravado on the left that allowed Alexander's master-stroke on the right to succeed. It was the exceptionally well trained phalanx battalions that was capable of implementing the rollout formation. It was the highly trained cavalry divisions on both wings that punched through against nearly overwhelming numbers in opposition. Much of that for sure was inherited from Philip. But we never hear of Philip taking on an army the size encountered at Issus, Guagamela, or Hydaspes. I would contend that it was Alexander's genius & drive that made the whole thing run and move forward. Particularly at the speed with which he did. And I disagree with your contention that the commander was not needed and that his generals were the ones that did all the heavy lifting. Though, lifting they did. It was a team effort from top to bottom and the top guy had to be the best of the bunch for the hierarchy to work or the jackals would have seen to his removal much earlier on. So, I agree with Green's comments concerning Alexander being the product of Philip AND Macedon. It was that competitive 'kill or be killed' environment that forged the entire military regime from top to bottom. This only gives more precedence to Alexander's imperative as the best of the best.
Paralus,
Where do I start?
Paralus wrote: Nicator wrote:One cannot argue that Philip was as 'up to the task' physically as his electrifying son. One eyed and hobbled...this was a recipe for disaster in a tight pinch. Repeatedly we hear of Alexander getting off horse and attacking on foot. In this type of warfare, the warlord's physique was paramount to success in close combat. Especially repeatedly where, in many situations, Alexander was immersed in the thick of things and would need to have 'both eyes' for total awareness.
In which case Philip should not ever have been in command at Chaeronaea for he was clearly not "physically up to the task". The entire proposition is rubbish and based on some idea that a twenty year old was needed to perform the job of the invasion of Asia ( as the_accursed has written). If the story is told correctly Alexander's two good eyes, lack of limp and lust for singular glory saw his life ended at the Granicus bar the efforts of an older (less physically adroit??) Cleitus.
The notion that only Alexander could lead on foot is baseless. What material we do have on Philip would indicate that he did so just as often as his son did and this is likely where Alexander learned such. And what on God's earth was Epaeminondas doing at Mantinea when he was likely well beyond fifty?? Just where did Monophthalmos get off leading armies (and cavalry charges) in Iran in his sixties?
Wasn't Epaminondas killed in battle [ANSWER=YES]? So much for that argument...And again, why do I seem to be repeating this over and over) the unknown and unrecorded power brokers behind the scenes. Did I not make it clear that my entire post was based on supposition? I will extrapolate the implications whenever i see fit. You, however, are free to withhold testimony limited to the written word at your leisure.
My original supposition was not based on Alexander's physique, though one cannot truly argue with any credibility whatsoever, that Philip was as capable as Alexander in that regard. My point was based on decisions that were made to remove him based on his character and dynastic dealings. The fact that Philip lunged at Alexander in that banquet hall after Attalus thoroughly humiliated Alexander and his mother is very telling as to Philip's intentions towards Alexander and his mother...and Attalus.
..and finally Marcus,
You levity is always welcome. I would only go one inch further and say that from the investor/business/power broker perspective...major decisions were likely made early on and, perhaps, slight and limited adjustments later on. Any maneuvering would be very limited after the campaign began and left the geo-political confines of Europe proper. And even more-so, after Alexander became more firmly entrenched and confident in his role.