Alexander the Great vs. Philip II

[centurion]

Hello all,
This is an informal opinion poll. Who, in your opinion, was the better military leader-Alexander III, or his father Philip? Please explain your opinion.
Hail and

[smittysmitty]

Philip - he lived longer

[dean]

Hi,I believe that both had their strengths-
Philip was defeated- as opposed to Alexander- who was undefeated yet Philip lived to be a lot older than ATG. I suppose that Philip's battles really were a war of mice in comparison to the epic proportions of Alexander's Gaugamela.While on the subject I loved the Spartan's reply to Philip when he sent them the following message " I will raze your towns to the ground if I conquer Sparta" and the Lacedemonians replied "If" in true laconian style.Best regards,
Dean.

[amyntoros]

And there's these two concerning the Spartans and Philip:Philip wrote at the time when he entered their country, asking whether they wished that he should come as a friend or as a foe; and they made answer, "Neither."When Philip of Macedon sent some orders to the Spartans by letter, they wrote in reply, "What you wrote about, 'No.'"Sorry - way off-topic, but I find these quotes irresistable! :-)Linda Ann

[iskander-32]

Alexander broughtGreece to its Knees in !8 months it took his father 20 years.Comparisons can be made with their achievements, Philip subdued a divided pertty quarelsome and unscrupulous nation of Greece and subdued hill tribes men.Alexander crushed the biggest empire the world had seen, I feel Philip to coy and careful to risk Gaugamella and Issus,just me but Alexander was much quicker and confident.Pretend Philip and Alexander met on the battle field I think Philip more hesitant, Alexander would have gone straight for the throat.kenny

[iskander-32]

Alexander broughtGreece to its Knees in !8 months it took his father 20 years.Comparisons can be made with their achievements, Philip subdued a divided pertty quarelsome and unscrupulous nation of Greece and subdued hill tribes men.The remark Philip was better because he lived longer, Darius also lived longer so was he better?
Alexander crushed the biggest empire the world had seen, I feel Philip to coy and careful to risk Gaugamella and Issus,just me but Alexander was much quicker and confident.Pretend Philip and Alexander met on the battle field I think Philip more hesitant, Alexander would have gone straight for the throat.kenny

[maximus]

Although Phillip and Alexander were both Great leaders militrastically, Alexander simply, in the end, faced harder ordeals than his father so i believe that Alexadner was simply because of the fact that he overcame more difficult challenges

[jan]

I can't help but think of Jesus's saying that in me you see the father. In Alexander, you can see the extension of Philip also.
Alexander is clearly the better of the two, and there can be no dispute on that. The history of the two is such that each relies upon each other totally and completely, but Alexander supersedes Philip in any comparison. I suspect that Philip realized that many times, yet would have wanted it too. Why else would he have selected Aristotle as a tutor?
Nobody in history has gone undefeated in any battle except Alexander. The battle of Issus alone makes the mind boggle with the number of troops that Darius commanded. The young Alexander versus the experienced but soft Darius is a real lesson to know and understand.
Clearly, Alexander deserves his credit, as Philip would want him to have it.

[smittysmitty]

Kenny,Kenny,Kenny!
'Alexander broughtGreece to its Knees in !8 months it took his father 20 years'.
May be a dumb question on my behalf, but how did he achieve this? Did he hop on his horse with sword in hand and simply go boo! and subdue the Greeks accompanied with his mother and sister?
'Comparisons can be made with their achievements, Philip subdued a divided pertty quarelsome and unscrupulous nation of Greece and subdued hill tribes men'.those very same people were the ones Persia supposedly struggled to defeat! with armies of ridiculous size,
yet Philip managed to! I wonder how! 'Alexander crushed the biggest empire the world had seen, I feel Philip to coy and careful to risk Gaugamella and Issus,just me but Alexander was much quicker and confident'.I have no idead how you formulate that opinion, perhaps just a gut feeling?'Pretend Philip and Alexander met on the battle field I think Philip more hesitant, Alexander would have gone straight for the throat'I think Phil would have just given him a backhander and sent Alexander sulking off to Epirus or Illyria once more!
please excuse my emotional comments, as it seems most of the responses on this thread are based on emotion as opposed to reason. Can't beat em' may as well join em! :)cheers!

[tino]

Philip had the harder campaigns!Philip had to first take a demoralized army quickly regroup it and march it out for a battle for survival. His first campaigns against Athenians, Illyrians, Thracians, et al. alone show his great strategic and military prowess. If one gives him the credit for the sarissa and the re-organization of the Macedonian army (which I believe is his doing) all this alone is genius.Next, Philip had to subdue the Greek city states. I believe that battles against the hoplite armies was more difficult than against the Persians. In Alexander's later campaigns were not the Greek mercenaries the ones who caused Alexander the most problems?Philip's tactical deception at Charoneia was brilliant. Strategic retreat split the weaker Athenians from the stronger Thebans, isolate each unit and destroy it. Against strong opponents!If Philip invaded the Persian Empire the outcome would have been the same. Had Alexander fought as many battles against as many different and varied opponents as Philip did, he too would have eventually lost. Alexander was a genius but I hold Philip higher. BTW, where do all these quotes on Philip and the Spartans originate from?

[Gemmini]

I think that you cant compare philip and alexander. Philip, before he could do anything in persia, had to secure his own state. He actualy started from nothing and to rise a nation to such a strenght as the macedonians in that time was not easy. Alexander on the other hand, when he became king, everything was ready, he just needed to take charge of the troops and lands his father had secuered for him.
I think, Alexander would never conquer Persia if he had to start from the same point as his father, his father on the other hand would never been as known as he is today if alexander would not be as great as he was...They both could not do nothing without the other.
A battle between them? You cant say who of them was better in battle, cause they both were excelent. You can only compare commanders that were in the same time on the same piece of earth fighting a battle.
In my eyes, they both where great men, equal to each other.

[amyntoros]

"BTW, where do all these quotes on Philip and the Spartans originate from?"Sorry - should have said. The two I quoted were from Plutarch's Moralia, Volume III - the chapter on the Sayings of Spartans. (This book also has sayings of Philip and Alexander in the chapter Sayings of Kings and Commanders.)Linda Ann

[tino]

Thank you!

[ruthaki]

I like Janet's answer. Who taught Alexander to be a warrior? His father was an excellent role model and encouraged his son to be great in battle. He himself was an brilliant soldier. But I wonder if Philip would have gone to the ends of the earth like Alexander did? Would he have had the same stamina? I think one was an extension of the other, but in the end, Alexander surpassed his father.

[trill]

I think the question should be Who was the best King?As a statesman few could equal Philip 2nd. Alexander at times ruled too much with his heart, though still competent in the dark arts.On an open field Both excelled, but Alexander faced larger numbers more often after extreme hardships in some cases. I think Alexander is the better field commander.Philip was not the siege general that alexander was, he broke up more than one siege in frustration.Alexanders siege reputation is unmatched.Philip also handled power in a more just way and was less corrupted by it in his lifetime. Whereas with Alexander after Siwah you can trace a slow decline into Megalomania.
But after all that if i was a Macedonian living in the mid 3rd century BC, id want Philip 2nd to be my King.Stability and Strength would prevail.