pothos.org

Ok this post may be out of order but here goes,, Its with regard to comparisons and Alexander outdoing Philip.My knowledge of Philip is not that great but what were his true credentials, Philip developed and created the awesome Macedonian army and consolidated Greece.Ok how many pitched Battles other than Cheronaea did Philip actually fight against huge odds and equal armies,,, Ok he warred in the Balkan states for years but just what are bis battlefield credentials.He conquered by diplomacy tact and finaly battle the Greek city states in aprox 20 years,,, It took Alexander 18 months.I accept Philip an inovator of tactics and drill but really can Philips actual achievements compare to Alexander I would argue not,, Im not sure but I thought he was not 100% victorious.Philip takes credit im sure for making the army,, Alexander takes credit for using those tools masterly and even inovating from time to time.Maybe I get fed up that Alexander tried to out do Philip I think Alexander outdid Philip when he crushed Greece in 18 months and the illirian tribes.As he outdid Achilles once passed Troy,, Up to arriving at Troy Alexander was well battle trained and left Achiles behind before even reaching Troy.
Kenny

Hello,I have to admit that it was possible that Philip created the right moment so that Alexander could go and "do his stuff"- undoubtedly the years as hostage in Thebes under Epamonidas(can't remember how his name is spelt off the top of my head) were excellently spent there.What we do hear of are a lot of are comparisons with Alexander and gods or mythological beings. Everything he did had to be to surpass some god or Achilles. I really do believe that the character of Achilles must have influenced Alexander considerably (Demosthenes tried to use it- saying that Alexander was nothing but the clown playing Achilles)and we hear of Alexander wanting to go beyond India because Dionysus got as far as there or to go through the Gedrosian desert because Cyrus did or SemiRamses when in all likelihood it was just to dig wells.
To answer your question I think that Philip wouldn't have had quite the same talent at making things up as you go along nor did he have the same "pothos"- Alexander's aims went always further than what he had- he would never have been satisfied.Best wishes,
Dean.

Hi Kenny,I think you're being a bit unfair to Philip. Philip had to start from scratch, securing his borders and creating peace within Macedonia, then extending his borders as he built up and trained his army. He spent considerable time trying to find a diplomatic solution (maybe cynically at times). Had Alexander had to start from scratch it might well have taken him just as long - or perhaps he would never have tried for a diplomatic solution, and might have succeeded more quickly ... but so might Philip had he not tried diplomacy.When Alexander became king he swept down into Greece and cowed the Greeks into submission; but had Philip not already achieved what he had I doubt Alexander would have had such an easy time of it, as he wouldn't have had the background and the already established League of Corinth to fall back on. When Thebes rose up in 335, had Athens lent men and other cities taken up arms in a co-ordinated defence, it would have meant another Chaeronea - which Alexander would very possibly have won; but without Philip's previous achievements it's difficult to say what the situation actually was.Of course I am not denigrating Alexander's own achievements, and I do think that Philip would have stopped his conquests sooner ... having said that, of course, had Philip survived to conquer the Persians, and established a 'greater' empire, it's quite possible that it would have lasted longer after his death. All the bestMarcus

Hail MarcusI accept your viewpoints as with most of what you say,, Im still not convinced of Philips war credentials as we both agree Philip bartered twisted and Politicked the Greeks for years.I would argue up until Cheroneau his war action was basic hilltribe scuffles and scurmishes I could be wrong,,, The first real tactical engagement was with The Greel allies at Cheroneaa and it was his son Alexander who dragged the teeth of that monster,, The Theban Sacred band.I am pretty sure Philip throughout the Persian campaign would have listened to the advice ignored by Alexander given by Parmenio, and Im more than sure Philip would have negotiated and chess played with Darius much more than Alexander did.I sometimes get fed up with people with cause refering to the brilliant Army Philip created,, thats fair point but the army was a brilliant tool used by an absolute crafttsmen of war.Not everyone can drive a Formula ! racing car to its potential and only a real craftsman can use a chisel to produce a master piece.Throughout history in all endevours brilliant tools have been wasted and abused by inept people,Custer got the 7th cavalry massacred by his incompetence, Lord Chelmsford got a whole battalion of British Soldiers wiped out at Asandwana by spear wielding Zulus, Field Marshall Montgomerie Sacrificed 8 from 10 thousand men in Arnhem.Do you get my point.regardskenny

Hi Kenny,There were various battles during the Amphictyonic War - late 350s/early 340s; although I imagine they weren't massive engagements. Other than those, Philip's main engagements with the Greeks were sieges rather than battles on the field.If one is just comparing battles on the field, then there's no doubt that Alexander fought, and won, much bigger engagements than Philip did, although of course we can't make any guesses about how Philip would have fared in the same situations. If one is looking at warfare in general, then I do think you're undervaluing Philip still - the main point still being, of course, that had Philip not done all he had, Alexander would only have had to do it himself ... whether he would have done it in 20 years or less is impossible to say! :-)Please don't think for a moment that I'm trying to denigrate what Alexander achieved. I just think it's a bit unfair to Philip to force a comparison when the circumstances were so different.All the bestMarcus

alexander is the great son of a great father. alexander wouldnt be in the position to conquer persia if it wasnt for his father. that being said, i doubt philip could have dreamed going as far as alexander did.face it, alexander came from extraordinary parents, that includes his dear mama.p.s. alexander LOVED his mother but in the movie that relationship is not portrayed like it should be. it seems oliver wanted to portray alexander despising his mother, almost hating her.

But we don't know what Alexander's relationship with Olympias was. We can guess, but Stone's guess is as good as anyone else's.Marcus

Marcus HailWith regard to the film been fact or fiction,, I would argue Alexander didnt have much time for his mother.The sources actually mention Olympias asking Alexander if she could be with him,,, He never took up this request and did leave her in Macedonia.I sometimes feel Alexander thought his mother a burdon as its also written about the heavy price his mothers asks for 9 months in the womb.Of course Olympius had enemies and in relative danger in Macedonia, So it must be asked why Alexander never brought her east if only to make sure she was safe.
Kenny

Hi Kenny,You're right. I would imagine that Olympias probably exasperated Alexander beyond imagining, and it's very possible that he did get extremely angry with her at times, and it's also very possible that he wanted to be as far away from her as possible ... but that he still loved her.We don't really know how many avowed enemies she had before Alexander's death - possibly quite a few, if we're honest. However, I imagine that there wasn't really very much to fear while Alexander was alive, even when he was out in the east - if anybody killed her then it would be in everybody's interests (including Antipater's, however much he disliked her) to avenge her ... or face Alexander's own wrath. So she was probably as safe in Macedonia during his lifetime as she was going to be anywhere else!All the bestMarcus