Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[marcus]

Regardless of how Philip is discussed (or not) today, the fact remains that he had histories written of him before his son developed pubic hairs.

Also, as Marcus has mentioned, the phalanx - the "rank and file" - had a very large soft spot for the father. Philip had, after all, made them what they were: citizens of the most powerful state in Europe. It is this "reflection" of Philip that powers the "rebellions" both at Opis and Babylon. Philip was remembered as the Macedonian king and it was his son - mentally deficient or not - that would be their king rather than a mongrel Macedonian / Asian yet to be born.

As Antigenes' messenger reminded the younger Macedonian drafts from the homeland at Gabiene:

"Wicked men, are you sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander?" and added that in a little while they would see that these veterans were worthy both of the kings and of their own past battles.

The Argyraspides certainly remembered Philip.

Absolutely. And just to continue where I was rudely interrupted yesterday by the need to work (how dare they! ), I should clarify that of course the fact that Alexander was already overshadowing Philip in the 3rd century was due to three things:

1. The writing of people who owed everything they had to Alexander - Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, etc. When Ptolemy became ruler of Egypt and effectively the patron/arbiter of all the Arts, Alexander was going to receive plenty of attention. However, it is interesting and significant that Ptolemy propagated the story that he was Philip's son - politically, considering the softness of the Macedonians towards Philip, this was just as important as being Alexander's half-brother.
2. The general political situation following Alexander's death. For all the Successors, they were wrangling over Alexander's empire, not Philip's. But, had Philip lived longer, who knows what he might have accomplished (lameness and blindness notwithstanding ... ), and there might have been just as much reason to celebrate Philip a generation or two down the line.
3. The Romans, who were glad to have such a successful conqueror to idolise and emulate. Again, had Philip not died in 336BC, the Romans might have wanted to hear more about Philip. As it was, there were Roman writers, such as Trogus/Justin, who compared Philip very favourably with Alexander; but Alexander was the successful conqueror, so he was the one they called "Great".

All in all, Philip's death prevented him from achieving all he could have achieved, and gave Alexander the opportunity to do it 'all' - Philip deserves all the recognition he can get, and probably more than he has hitherto enjoyed. That isn't to say that Alexander should be belittled in any way - it's just the natural consequence of the son eclipsing the father.

ATB

[the_accursed]

Another way of putting it would be to say that Alexander's fame is to a great extent coincidental. He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible. A mere three years after the invasion of Persia had begun, the accomplishments of Philip's army had made millennias of fame for Alexander an inevitability. All that stood between Philip and similar fame was those three years. Essentially, Philip spent more than 20 years building a pyramid. And then, just before it was finally finished, his son stepped in, added the gilded peak and got the credit for the whole thing. Alexander supposedly said, before the battle of Gaugamela, that he didn't want to steal his glory through a night attack. But if he had anything at all to do with Philip's death, it would make him the greatest glory thief in history.

[spitamenes]

Another way of putting it would be to say that Alexander's fame is to a great extent coincidental. He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible. A mere three years after the invasion of Persia had begun, the accomplishments of Philip's army had made millennias of fame for Alexander an inevitability. All that stood between Philip and similar fame was those three years. Essentially, Philip spent more than 20 years building a pyramid. And then, just before it was finally finished, his son stepped in, added the gilded peak and got the credit for the whole thing. Alexander supposedly said, before the battle of Gaugamela, that he didn't want to steal his glory through a night attack. But if he had anything at all to do with Philip's death, it would make him the greatest glory thief in history.

Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true. It seems like I'm hearing,.. Alexander came in at the last minute and stole all Philips glory... how long was Alexander out of country on campaign? He traveled thousands of miles on foot and horse. Through the Hindu Kush of all places, and I can say, it is some of the most god forsaken horrid areas to travel on this earth. How many wounds did he receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING? Philip did what he did with the tools he was given,heck, he even created some of the tools he used. But Alexander did the same. Would Philip have rather had Alexander fail after his death? Or go on to take over the known world? If Alexander sat in Macedonia for the wolves to come to his doorstep, something I would think a spineless cheerleader type to do, people today(in non historical circles) would not know as much of Philip of Macedon as they do. In the end, Alexander not only gave glory to himself, but also to Macedon and its army, and ultimately to his father as well.

[marcus]

Another way of putting it would be to say that Alexander's fame is to a great extent coincidental. He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible. A mere three years after the invasion of Persia had begun, the accomplishments of Philip's army had made millennias of fame for Alexander an inevitability. All that stood between Philip and similar fame was those three years. Essentially, Philip spent more than 20 years building a pyramid. And then, just before it was finally finished, his son stepped in, added the gilded peak and got the credit for the whole thing. Alexander supposedly said, before the battle of Gaugamela, that he didn't want to steal his glory through a night attack. But if he had anything at all to do with Philip's death, it would make him the greatest glory thief in history.

Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true. It seems like I'm hearing,.. Alexander came in at the last minute and stole all Philips glory...

I agree. It is being unduly harsh on Alexander to say that his fame is coincidental - it wasn't. It was not mere coincidence that enabled him to achieve all he did. He was fortunate to have had a father who had done so much, but if he had been a lesser man he wouldn't have been able to capitalise on what Philip left him. Instead, he took what he was given and achieved a phenomenal success with it.

I certainly don't think that Philip should be consigned to ignominy; but at the same time it is unfair and unrealistic to demean Alexander in favour of Philip. It wasn't Alexander's fault that (a) Philip died when he did, and (b) he became more famous than Philip after his death. As I said before, even at the end of his life Alexander was acknowledging the debt he owed to his father.

ATB

[marcus]

Another way of putting it would be to say that Alexander's fame is to a great extent coincidental. He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible. A mere three years after the invasion of Persia had begun, the accomplishments of Philip's army had made millennias of fame for Alexander an inevitability. All that stood between Philip and similar fame was those three years. Essentially, Philip spent more than 20 years building a pyramid. And then, just before it was finally finished, his son stepped in, added the gilded peak and got the credit for the whole thing. Alexander supposedly said, before the battle of Gaugamela, that he didn't want to steal his glory through a night attack. But if he had anything at all to do with Philip's death, it would make him the greatest glory thief in history.

That isn't "another way of putting" what I was saying, at all. In no way was I insinuating that Alexander's fame was coincidental - I was commenting on that fact that Alexander's fame eclipsed Philip's fame after his death for various reasons, but in no way at all am I suggesting that Alexander didn't deserve his fame.

He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible.

Just to add to this - it could be argued that Philip became king "at the most opportune moment". Had Perdiccas not been killed by the Illyrians when he was, Philip wouldn't have become king. And Philip, of course, had been tutored by the Thebans, which education enabled him to build the Macedonian army when he was unexpectedly catapulted into a position where he was able to do so.

It is, in fact, remarkably disingenuous to suggest that someone doesn't deserve credit just because he happened to have been left a great legacy. I do totally agree that, for many centuries, Philip has not had his fair share of recognition, however.

ATB

[the_accursed]

Another way of putting it would be to say that Alexander's fame is to a great extent coincidental. He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible. A mere three years after the invasion of Persia had begun, the accomplishments of Philip's army had made millennias of fame for Alexander an inevitability. All that stood between Philip and similar fame was those three years. Essentially, Philip spent more than 20 years building a pyramid. And then, just before it was finally finished, his son stepped in, added the gilded peak and got the credit for the whole thing. Alexander supposedly said, before the battle of Gaugamela, that he didn't want to steal his glory through a night attack. But if he had anything at all to do with Philip's death, it would make him the greatest glory thief in history.

Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true. It seems like I'm hearing,.. Alexander came in at the last minute and stole all Philips glory... how long was Alexander out of country on campaign? He traveled thousands of miles on foot and horse. Through the Hindu Kush of all places, and I can say, it is some of the most god forsaken horrid areas to travel on this earth. How many wounds did he receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING? Philip did what he did with the tools he was given,heck, he even created some of the tools he used. But Alexander did the same. Would Philip have rather had Alexander fail after his death? Or go on to take over the known world? If Alexander sat in Macedonia for the wolves to come to his doorstep, something I would think a spineless cheerleader type to do, people today(in non historical circles) would not know as much of Philip of Macedon as they do. In the end, Alexander not only gave glory to himself, but also to Macedon and its army, and ultimately to his father as well.

It can't by a long shot be said about any king or kingdom. Few kings in history have come to power under even remotely similar circumstances. Alexander got everything served to him on a platter from day one: the greatest army in the world, brilliant generals, an invasion plan and a huge, rich and militarily weak empire to conquer. As long as he managed to stay alive and stay out of the way of his generals, millennias of fame was inevitable. As for Philip, there was nothing fortunate what so ever about becoming king at a time when the Macedonian kingdom was on the verge of collapse. Few leaders in history could have done what Philip did.

Yes, Alexander was on campaign for a long time, but it was the three years that ended with the victory at Gaugamela that gave him his glory. Had Philip only lived long enough to defeat Darius at Gaugamela (or somewhere else), that would have been enough. He'd then have been known as Philip the great for the past 2300 years. Had Alexander then succeeded him, he'd have been known for his misadventures in Bactria and India, his meaningless death march through the Gedrosian desert, his claim to be the son of a God, his many murders and massacres and for having caused the collapse of Philip's empire. Not very glorious...

What would Philip have wanted Alexander to do? My best guess is, he'd have wanted him to care about the kingdom he was king of. He'd have wanted him to father a Macedonian heir, govern his empire wisely and refrain from murdering his officers, demand to be worshiped as a god or get his soldiers killed in a meaningless march through a desert. He'd have wanted him to be a man and not an impulsive, vain and murderous little boy.

[Alexias]

Accursed, I have to ask - you have such a low opinion of Alexander, why are you even interested in him? If you'll forgive me, some of your comments sound like sour grapes for a young man's success.

[the_accursed]

That isn't "another way of putting" what I was saying, at all. In no way was I insinuating that Alexander's fame was coincidental - I was commenting on that fact that Alexander's fame eclipsed Philip's fame after his death for various reasons, but in no way at all am I suggesting that Alexander didn't deserve his fame.

It wasn't my intention to imply you agreed with me. I hold no such belief. But you're right, and I apologize: I should have phrased it differently.

He was not, like Cyrus, Philip or Caesar in any way a self-made man. He just became king at the most opportune moment possible.

Just to add to this - it could be argued that Philip became king "at the most opportune moment".

No. Not at all. Not reasonably.

Yes, Philip was fortunate to have had lived in Thebes. But he became king of a collapsing kingdom surrounded by aggressive enemies eager to finish Macedonia off entirely. If that was "the most opportune moment" to become king of Macedonia, I can scarcely imagine what the least opportune moment would have been. I guess it would have to be if he'd become king on the very same day the Macedonian kingdom ceased to exist.

Had Perdiccas not been killed by the Illyrians when he was, Philip wouldn't have become king. And Philip, of course, had been tutored by the Thebans, which education enabled him to build the Macedonian army when he was unexpectedly catapulted into a position where he was able to do so.

It is, in fact, remarkably disingenuous to suggest that someone doesn't deserve credit just because he happened to have been left a great legacy. I do totally agree that, for many centuries, Philip has not had his fair share of recognition, however.

ATB

Whatever you may think of my opinion Marcus, it's what I honestly think. I don't see what's "disingenuous" about having or stating it. Frankly I think you're hitting me with a rhetorical sledgehammer here, and doing so unjustly. I don't think Alexander deserves much credit because I - honestly - don't think he was the reason, or even a reason, why Macedonia won. The assumption that Alexander was a "military genius" is in my opinion not needed to explain why the Macedonian campaign against Persia ended with Macedonian victory.

[the_accursed]

Accursed, I have to ask - you have such a low opinion of Alexander, why are you even interested in him? If you'll forgive me, some of your comments sound like sour grapes for a young man's success.

I forgive you.

As for the question, I have to say, I don't really think I have any obligation to justify my participation here. And I think it would be a good thing if you and bessusww, who asked the same question recently, would think about what it means that you ask this question. I don't believe for one moment that neither you nor bessusww think it the least bit strange in general that someone would be interested in discussing a historical person they don't like. People do so every day on the internet, and this is not news neither to you, nor to bessusww. What you think is strange is that someone would be interested in discussing Alexander without liking him. And you two really should ask yourselves why that is and what it means.

[spitamenes]

Accursed,
If Alexander was as incompetant as you say he was, why would he be allowed to come to power in the first place? When Philip died, why didn't someone stand up and claim Kingship for themselves and then fight for it? Why didnt the Generals of Philip put a stop to Alexander before he gained control? We all know Macedonia was a kill or be killed environment. A very unforgiving kingdom where at any sign of weakness one would be pounced on instantly. Why would they stand by and let this supposed weak link in the Royal family take over at such a vital time?

[the_accursed]

Accursed,
If Alexander was as incompetant as you say he was, why would he be allowed to come to power in the first place? When Philip died, why didn't someone stand up and claim Kingship for themselves and then fight for it? Why didnt the Generals of Philip put a stop to Alexander before he gained control? We all know Macedonia was a kill or be killed environment. A very unforgiving kingdom where at any sign of weakness one would be pounced on instantly. Why would they stand by and let this supposed weak link in the Royal family take over at such a vital time?

To me this is another peculiar question to ask. Why was he allowed to come to power in the first place if he was so incompetent? Really, ask yourself this: why are incompetent people regularly allowed to come to power? Why has this been the case throughout history? Clearly, people are pretty so-so at assessing other people. Nor are we very good at predicting the future. Had Parmenion known that Alexander would one day order his assassination, he'd probably not have been inclined to support him. Had Cleitus known that Alexander would one day murder him, he'd probably have thought twice about saving his life. And had the Macedonian soldiers in general known that their king would "orientalise", proclaim himself the son of a god, try to introduce proskynesis, murder many of them and, by refusing to produce a fully Macedonian heir, cause the collapse of the empire they would conquer for him...they would probably have doubted the wisdom of allowing him to become their king.

[Alexias]

As for the question, I have to say, I don't really think I have any obligation to justify my participation here. And I think it would be a good thing if you and bessusww, who asked the same question recently, would think about what it means that you ask this question. I don't believe for one moment that neither you nor bessusww think it the least bit strange in general that someone would be interested in discussing a historical person they don't like. People do so every day on the internet, and this is not news neither to you, nor to bessusww. What you think is strange is that someone would be interested in discussing Alexander without liking him. And you two really should ask yourselves why that is and what it means.

Thank you. It was a fairly straightforward question and I don't see any reason to get cryptic or convoluted, but if you don't want to answer, fine.

[spitamenes]

Accursed,
If Alexander was as incompetant as you say he was, why would he be allowed to come to power in the first place? When Philip died, why didn't someone stand up and claim Kingship for themselves and then fight for it? Why didnt the Generals of Philip put a stop to Alexander before he gained control? We all know Macedonia was a kill or be killed environment. A very unforgiving kingdom where at any sign of weakness one would be pounced on instantly. Why would they stand by and let this supposed weak link in the Royal family take over at such a vital time?

To me this is another peculiar question to ask. Why was he allowed to come to power in the first place if he was so incompetent? Really, ask yourself this: why are incompetent people regularly allowed to come to power? Why has this been the case throughout history? Clearly, people are pretty so-so at assessing other people. Nor are we very good at predicting the future. Had Parmenion known that Alexander would one day order his assassination, he'd probably not have been inclined to support him. Had Cleitus known that Alexander would one day murder him, he'd probably have thought twice about saving his life. And had the Macedonian soldiers in general known that their king would "orientalise", proclaim himself the son of a god, try to introduce proskynesis, murder many of them and, by refusing to produce a fully Macedonian heir, cause the collapse of the empire they would conquer for him...they would probably have doubted the wisdom of allowing him to become their king.

Incompetent people regularly come to power through deception. They decieve the people into believing they will be the good of the nation. but in Alexanders case, if we are to go with what you say, he was completely incompetant of making any kind of rational or decent decision. So how would he be able to decieve such a large group of able minded generals into believeing he was the best candidate for the next King?

I'm not trying to be ...confrontational, for lack of a better word.(please feel free to let me know a better one.) Because I do read with enthusiasm everything you write. But I also believe that you seem to want to bash Alexander more than you want to get your point across. Which is something you do not have to justify. But if someone confronts you about it, there should be no suprise.

[Alexias]

To me this is another peculiar question to ask. Why was he allowed to come to power in the first place if he was so incompetent? Really, ask yourself this: why are incompetent people regularly allowed to come to power? Why has this been the case throughout history? Clearly, people are pretty so-so at assessing other people. Nor are we very good at predicting the future. Had Parmenion known that Alexander would one day order his assassination, he'd probably not have been inclined to support him. Had Cleitus known that Alexander would one day murder him, he'd probably have thought twice about saving his life. And had the Macedonian soldiers in general known that their king would "orientalise", proclaim himself the son of a god, try to introduce proskynesis, murder many of them and, by refusing to produce a fully Macedonian heir, cause the collapse of the empire they would conquer for him...they would probably have doubted the wisdom of allowing him to become their king.

No, you're just side-stepping the question here. No one has foresight. The Macedonians chose Alexander because in their judgement, he was the best candidate to continue Philip's policies and he had the best chance of maintaining stability in the kingdom. Macedonian kingship was an active, not a passive role, at this moment in time, and Alexander would have been quickly disposed of by someone more powerful if he had been as ineffective and indecisive as you appear to believe. If Parmenion and Antipater didn't believe in 336 BC (whatever they might or might not have thought in later years) that Alexander was the best choice for king in Philip's place, why didn't they throw their support behind the perfectly acceptable choice of his cousin Amyntas? Or the Lyncestians? You really need to provide an answer as to why you think these mature, experienced men showed such poor judgement in backing Alexander. If you think Alexander was simply a figurehead for them, or others, I think you need to examine why the nature of Macedonian kingship would so radically alter between Philip and Alexander's reign without a civil war breaking out.

[marcus]

Whatever you may think of my opinion Marcus, it's what I honestly think. I don't see what's "disingenuous" about having or stating it. Frankly I think you're hitting me with a rhetorical sledgehammer here, and doing so unjustly. I don't think Alexander deserves much credit because I - honestly - don't think he was the reason, or even a reason, why Macedonia won. The assumption that Alexander was a "military genius" is in my opinion not needed to explain why the Macedonian campaign against Persia ended with Macedonian victory.

Fair enough, if that's what you think (as you clearly do). Obviously I don't share your view - but actually, I had sort of got the impression that you were arguing something else.

What I *thought* you were arguing was that Alexander doesn't deserve credit for conquering the known world, simply because Philip had laid the groundwork - that would have been disingenuous. I see now that you are arguing that Alexander was actually not very good and only succeeded because of what Philip had done. I vehemently disagree, and think you are entirely wrong ... but I am happy to withdraw the word disingenuous!

I wasn't aware that it was a rhetorical sledgehammer, either - if it was, then (a) I am quite impressed with myself, but (b) sorry you felt that way! Pax?

ATB