pothos.org

My intrepretation from the sources is that Phillip either did not have the cavalry arm that Alexander later so effectively used, or that he chose to lead from the infantry and 'behind the lines' so to speak. An example that comes to mind is Chaeronia. If I am understanding the battle correctly Phillip basically co-ordinated the battle while others led the fighting, including Alexander on the left flank. Can anyone comment more on this?

I think you're really underestimating Philip as a general here. There is a famous quote from Demosthenes listing Philip's wounds. It includes losing an eye to an arrow, a broken collarbone, and a spesrwound thru the thigh that killed his horse as well. I think Philip, like Alexander,commanded from the spot he thought was most crucial to victory in that particular situation. At Chaeronea that was the phalanx which by a feigned retreat disordered the opposing infantry and produced the gap that Alexander led the Companion cavalry thru.

I don't think Philip realized the full potential of his cavalry. No doubt, he used them effectively, but probably not as the main striking force that they became under Alexander. I've often imagined Alexander as a young boy at his fathers side, silently observing and patiently waiting for the day he would show the world how effective cavalry could be. Also consider that Philip never had a Guagamela where cavalry would be so important. Philip's strength may have been his ability to keep, equip, and train a standing army. Alexander's strength may have been his ability to run with it. The two men together formed a perfect 1-2 punch that could not easily be done alone. It is unlikely that Alexander could have done what he did, or even some semblance of the vast accomplishments without Philip. Philip seemed more capable a diplomat; who wisely used the law of incremental advancement to achieve his own political ends. Alexander seemed much more of a pure tactical genius that thrived on adversity and made change work for him. Philip was well trained and relied on his Theban military training when going into battle. Alexander, though equally well trained (indeed probably had a much more thorough, regimented, and advanced training), seemed to be better able to innovate under fire. As Green put it "Alexander's military prowess was unusual...often seeming almost pre-cognitive". Green usually known as the great Alexander detractor (my words), has an obvious respect for Alexander's military skills, and a less obvious respect for his political dogma. Make no mistake, Philip was a military genius of the highest order. His innovations changed the world of warfare forever. It was Alexander, however, that took that incredible army to the next level. It was Alexander that inspired his troops to do the unimaginable, and pushed them beyond their limits to make them as great as they could be.
later Nicator

Thanks for the comments! I do not at all underestimate Phillip as a general. In fact, I think he is at least, if not better, as good of a general as Alexander. Cheers!