pothos.org

Some great responses in this thread and I guess I will finally wade in to the thick of it, but there should be no ambiguity here: I firmly hold that Philip is the greater. Now such a bald-faced statement does need a little explanation. I am of the opinion that while they are many qualities and deficiencies that we may attribute to each of these great kings, the final and only benchmark that should be the deciding factor is: who was the better king? And if that is the litmus test, then what defines a better king? In my humble opinion, the better king is the one who leaves his state, people, his kingdom if you will, better off than when he found it. And while we are all at times bedazzled by the almost mythical and breathtaking stature of the military accomplishments of Alexander, I truly believe that we cannot in all honesty say that he left the stronger kingdom than Philip. That it may have come down to one cardinal sin, the lack of the heir, this was a colossal error to rank with his colossal achievements. Frankly, upon Philip's death Macedonia was definitely on the ascendancy with a strong heir to carry on the work, after Alexander, Macedonia itself was not even arguably the most powerful of the successor kingdoms and Alexander managed to extinguish a dynasty that had ruled for hundreds of years. In the diplomatic field, Philip was legendary for his abilities, in the military field while lacking the sheer scale of Alexander's accomplishments, his record was in my opinion even more impressive when faced with the obstacles and calibre of opponents he had to overcome, and from such depths at the onset of his reign.

Forgive the length, but I believe this may be of some interest bearing in mind this topic:

Lucan, Dialogues of the Dead

12 (14). PHILIP AND ALEXANDER

PHILIP
You cannot deny that you are my son this time, Alexander; you would not have died if you had been Ammon's.

ALEXANDER
I knew all the time that you, Philip, son of Amyntas, were my father. I only accepted the statement of the oracle because I thought it was good policy.

PHILIP
What, to suffer yourself to be fooled by lying priests?

ALEXANDER
No, but it had an awe-inspiring effect upon the barbarians. When they thought they had a God to deal with, they gave up the struggle; which made their conquest a simple matter.

PHILIP
And whom did you ever conquer that was worth conquering? Your adversaries were ever timid creatures, with their bows and their targets and their wicker shields. It was other work conquering the Greeks: Boeotians, Phocians, Athenians; Arcadian hoplites, Thessalian cavalry, javelin-men from Elis, peltasts of Mantinea; Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians; to subdue these was something. But for gold-laced womanish Medes and Persians and Chaldaeans,—why, it had been done before: did you never hear of the expedition of the Ten Thousand under Clearchus? and how the enemy would not even come to blows with them, but ran away before they were within bow-shot?

ALEXANDER
Still, there were the Scythians, father, and the Indian elephants; they were no joke. And my conquests were not gained by dissension or treachery; I broke no oath, no promise, nor ever purchased victory at the expense of honour. As to the Greeks, most of them joined me without a struggle; and I dare say you have heard how I handled Thebes.

PHILIP
I know all about that; I had it from Clitus, whom you ran through the body, in the middle of dinner, because he presumed to mention my achievements in the same breath with yours. They tell me too that you took to aping the manners of your conquered Medes; abandoned the Macedonian cloak in favour of the candys, assumed the upright tiara, and exacted oriental prostrations from Macedonian freemen! This is delicious. As to your brilliant matches, and your beloved Hephaestion, and your scholars in lions' cages,--the less said the better. I have only heard one thing to your credit: you respected the person of Darius's beautiful wife, and you provided for his mother and daughters; there you acted like a king.

ALEXANDER
And have you nothing to say of my adventurous spirit, father, when I was the first to leap down within the ramparts of Oxydracae, and was covered with wounds?

PHILIP
Not a word. Not that it is a bad thing, in my opinion, for a king to get wounded occasionally, and to face danger at the head of his troops: but this was the last thing that you were called upon to do. You were passing for a God; and your being wounded, and carried off the field on a litter, bleeding and groaning, could only excite the ridicule of the spectators: Ammon stood convicted of quackery, his oracle of falsehood, his priests of flattery. The son of Zeus in a swoon, requiring medical assistance! who could help laughing at the sight? And now that you have died, can you doubt that many a jest is being cracked on the subject of your divinity, as men contemplate the God's corpse laid out for burial, and already going the way of all flesh? Besides, your achievements lose half their credit from this very circumstance which you say was so useful in facilitating your conquests: nothing you did could come up to your divine reputation.

ALEXANDER
The world thinks otherwise. I am ranked with Heracles and Dionysus; and, for that matter, I took Aornos, which was more than either of them could do.

PHILIP
There spoke the son of Ammon. Heracles and Dionysus, indeed! You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Alexander; when will you learn to drop that bombast, and know yourself for the shade that you are?

Nikas wrote:... the better king is the one who leaves his state, people, his kingdom if you will, better off than when he found it. And while we are all at times bedazzled by the almost mythical and breathtaking stature of the military accomplishments of Alexander, I truly believe that we cannot in all honesty say that he left the stronger kingdom than Philip.

Hello folks and what's in it for the workers??

Nikas wrote:Frankly, upon Philip's death Macedonia was definitely on the ascendancy with a strong heir to carry on the work, after Alexander, Macedonia itself was not even arguably the most powerful of the successor kingdoms and Alexander managed to extinguish a dynasty that had ruled for hundreds of years.

Absolutely correct. Macedonia, at the time of Philip's death, was the most powerful state in Europe and had embarked upon the process of aggrandisement in the East. In the immediate wake of Alexander's death, a Macedonian army in Greece was defeated in battle for the first time in a generation. It was a shocking precursor of what was to follow. The empire, lacking an heir, fell into conflicting power blocks. It rapidly became plain that the homeland was now a house brick compared to the pyramid bricks of the eastern power blocs. Manpower - not already taken east and, for the greater part, never to return - was consistently lured from the mainland by marshals with both the patronage and the money to back it.

As I remarked earlier in this thread: no matter the exculpatory arguments, the failure to provide for a succession sealed the fate of the empire. And, if the reported deathbed remarks of the glory seeking king have any historicity to them, Alexander's cavalier attitude confirms a fatal failing.

Paralus wrote:
Hello folks and what's in it for the workers??

Apparently, to no longer be a tribe of impoverished vagabonds, running around dressed in skins, feeding a few sheep on hills and feebly fighting Thracians, Triballians, and Illyrians, but instead getting some snazzy new cloaks and getting to live in the plains with a dash of civilization!

Did Philip ever actually claim Alexander to be his heir or was Alexander just the best fit at the time of Philips death?

Nikas,
Dialogues of the Dead! I just ordered it a few days ago and will have it any time now. Glad to know Philip and Alexander are in there.

"Dialogues of the Dead"...sounds like an Album name for a metal band.

spitamenes wrote:Did Philip ever actually claim Alexander to be his heir or was Alexander just the best fit at the time of Philips death?

I don't think it's ever recorded specifically that Philip named Alexander as his heir, although that doesn't mean that he didn't. But he wasn't just the best fit - it is clear that Alexander was definitely being groomed for the throne, and everyone would have known it - not least when Alexander was left as regent of Macedonia in around 340BC.

ATB

spitamenes wrote:Did Philip ever actually claim Alexander to be his heir or was Alexander just the best fit at the time of Philips death?

Nikas,
Dialogues of the Dead! I just ordered it a few days ago and will have it any time now. Glad to know Philip and Alexander are in there.

"Dialogues of the Dead"...sounds like an Album name for a metal band.

While I don't recall in any sources where Philip actually named him heir, and in fact one get's the sense that Philip kept Alexander in almost a constant anxiety that he may not be his only choice, it must have been clear that Alexander was the heir, if not from general Macedonian custom, then in his appointment as regent during one of Philip's campaigns,the hiring of Aristotle, and so on. We may also consider this quote from the Pixodorus affair:

"But Philip, as soon as he was made acquainted with this transaction went to his son's apartment, taking with him Philotas, the son of Parmenio, one of Alexander's intimate friends and companions, and there reproved him severely, and reproached him bitterly, that he should be so degenerate, and unworthy of the power he was to leave him, as to desire the alliance of a mean Carian…" Plutarch, Alexander.

As for Dialogues of the Dead, I don't want to spoil for you, but Alexander seems to be getting into a few arguments there in Hades:

25 (12). ALEXANDER, HANNIBAL, MINOS AND SCIPIO

ALEXANDER
Libyan, I claim precedence of you. I am the better man.

HANNIBAL
Pardon me.

ALEXANDER
Then let Minos decide.

MINOS
Who are you both?

ALEXANDER
This is Hannibal, the Carthaginian: I am Alexander, the son of Philip.

MINOS
Bless me, a distinguished pair! And what is the quarrel about?

ALEXANDER
It is a question of precedence. He says he is the better general: and I maintain that neither Hannibal nor (I might almost add) any of my predecessors was my equal in strategy; all the world knows that.

MINOS
Well, you shall each have your say in turn: the Libyan first.

HANNIBAL
Fortunately for me, Minos, I have mastered Greek since I have been here; so that my adversary will not have even that advantage of me. Now I hold that the highest praise is due to those who have won their way to greatness from obscurity; who have clothed themselves in power, and shown themselves fit for dominion. I myself entered Spain with a handful of men, took service under my brother, and was found worthy of the supreme command. I conquered the Celtiberians, subdued Western Gaul, crossed the Alps, overran the valley of the Po, sacked town after town, made myself master of the plains, approached the bulwarks of the capital, and in one day slew such a host, that their finger-rings were measured by bushels, and the rivers were bridged by their bodies. And this I did, though I had never been called a son of Ammon; I never pretended to be a god, never related visions of my mother; I made no secret of the fact that I was mere flesh and blood. My rivals were the ablest generals in the world, commanding the best soldiers in the world; I warred not with Medes or Assyrians, who fly before they are pursued, and yield the victory to him that dares take it. Alexander, on the other hand, in increasing and extending as he did the dominion which he had inherited from his father, was but following the impetus given to him by Fortune. And this conqueror had no sooner crushed his puny adversary by the victories of Issus and Arbela, than he forsook the traditions of his country, and lived the life of a Persian; accepting the prostrations of his subjects, assassinating his friends at his own table, or handing them over to the executioner. I in my command respected the freedom of my country, delayed not to obey her summons, when the enemy with their huge armament invaded Libya, laid aside the privileges of my office, and submitted to my sentence without a murmur. Yet I was a barbarian all unskilled in Greek culture; I could not recite Homer, nor had I enjoyed the advantages of Aristotle's instruction; I had to make a shift with such qualities as were mine by nature.—It is on these grounds that I claim the pre-eminence. My rival has indeed all the lustre that attaches to the wearing of a diadem, and—I know not—for Macedonians such things may have charms: but I cannot think that this circumstance constitutes a higher claim than the courage and genius of one who owed nothing to Fortune, and everything to his own resolution.

MINOS
Not bad, for a Libyan.—Well, Alexander, what do you say to that?

ALEXANDER
Silence, Minos, would be the best answer to such confident self-assertion. The tongue of Fame will suffice of itself to convince you that I was a great prince, and my opponent a petty adventurer. But I would have you consider the distance between us. Called to the throne while I was yet a boy, I quelled the disorders of my kingdom, and avenged my father's murder. By the destruction of Thebes, I inspired the Greeks with such awe, that they appointed me their commander-in-chief; and from that moment, scorning to confine myself to the kingdom that I inherited from my father, I extended my gaze over the entire face of the earth, and thought it shame if I should govern less than the whole. With a small force I invaded Asia, gained a great victory on the Granicus, took Lydia, Ionia, Phrygia,—in short, subdued all that was within my reach, before I commenced my march for Issus, where Darius was waiting for me at the head of his myriads. You know the sequel: yourselves can best say what was the number of the dead whom on one day I dispatched hither. The ferryman tells me that his boat would not hold them; most of them had to come across on rafts of their own construction. In these enterprises, I was ever at the head of my troops, ever courted danger. To say nothing of Tyre and Arbela, I penetrated into India, and carried my empire to the shores of Ocean; I captured elephants; I conquered Porus; I crossed the Tanais, and worsted the Scythians—no mean enemies—in a tremendous cavalry engagement. I heaped benefits upon my friends: I made my enemies taste my resentment. If men took me for a god, I cannot blame them; the vastness of my undertakings might excuse such a belief. But to conclude. I died a king: Hannibal, a fugitive at the court of the Bithynian Prusias—fitting end for villany and cruelty. Of his Italian victories I say nothing; they were the fruit not of honest legitimate warfare, but of treachery, craft, and dissimulation. He taunts me with self-indulgence: my illustrious friend has surely forgotten the pleasant time he spent in Capua among the ladies, while the precious moments fleeted by. Had I not scorned the Western world, and turned my attention to the East, what would it have cost me to make the bloodless conquest of Italy, and Libya, and all, as far West as Gades? But nations that already cowered beneath a master were unworthy of my sword.—I have finished, Minos, and await your decision; of the many arguments I might have used, these shall suffice.

SCIPIO
First, Minos, let me speak.

MINOS
And who are you, friend? and where do you come from?

SCIPIO
I am Scipio, the Roman general, who destroyed Carthage, and gained great victories over the Libyans.

MINOS
Well, and what have you to say?

SCIPIO
That Alexander is my superior, and I am Hannibal's, having defeated him, and driven him to ignominious flight. What impudence is this, to contend with Alexander, to whom I, your conqueror, would not presume to compare myself!

MINOS
Honestly spoken, Scipio, on my word! Very well, then: Alexander comes first, and you next; and I think we must say Hannibal third. And a very creditable third, too.


Your right, it does sound like a metal band! I can just see the album artwork from Iron Maiden to get a sense of it!

Paralus wrote:

spitamenes wrote:Do you believe Alexander has a prominent role in Philips popularity? Or would he be discussed as much as he is nowdays even without the help of his sons fortunes in conquest?

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.

Of course, Alexander himself was a half-breed. It was only Euridice and her offspring that sported the full Macedonian heritage. That is if you adhere to the tenets that Philip himself was full Macedonian. But perhaps that's what you meant when you said 'mongrel Macedonian'?

marcus wrote:

the_accursed wrote: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.

the_accursed wrote: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

Agreed Marcus. The thought occurred to me that certainly Arrian was aware of the accomplishments and stature of Philip though he chose to do his narrative on Alexander. In some sense, we have to accede to the knowledge of the ancients here. Though, as Paralus noted, many many texts were lost to us that might have given us a better sense of what Philip did and how great he was in his own right.

Paralus wrote:

Nikas wrote:... the better king is the one who leaves his state, people, his kingdom if you will, better off than when he found it. And while we are all at times bedazzled by the almost mythical and breathtaking stature of the military accomplishments of Alexander, I truly believe that we cannot in all honesty say that he left the stronger kingdom than Philip.

Hello folks and what's in it for the workers??

Nikas wrote:Frankly, upon Philip's death Macedonia was definitely on the ascendancy with a strong heir to carry on the work, after Alexander, Macedonia itself was not even arguably the most powerful of the successor kingdoms and Alexander managed to extinguish a dynasty that had ruled for hundreds of years.

Absolutely correct. Macedonia, at the time of Philip's death, was the most powerful state in Europe and had embarked upon the process of aggrandisement in the East. In the immediate wake of Alexander's death, a Macedonian army in Greece was defeated in battle for the first time in a generation. It was a shocking precursor of what was to follow. The empire, lacking an heir, fell into conflicting power blocks. It rapidly became plain that the homeland was now a house brick compared to the pyramid bricks of the eastern power blocs. Manpower - not already taken east and, for the greater part, never to return - was consistently lured from the mainland by marshals with both the patronage and the money to back it.

As I remarked earlier in this thread: no matter the exculpatory arguments, the failure to provide for a succession sealed the fate of the empire. And, if the reported deathbed remarks of the glory seeking king have any historicity to them, Alexander's cavalier attitude confirms a fatal failing.

It's not fair to Alexander to demean him based on the collapse of his kingdom. And what a massive kingdom it was. Had he not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.

Also, like Philip, Alexander had no choice on when he died AND he did leave some choices for an heir. Who's to say what could have been had he lived another 15 to 20 years to consolidate gains and 'raise' the heir apparent.

And a little jab for the accursed...yes, a Macedonian army was defeated (without Alexander at the helm). Sorry, couldn't help it

Nikas wrote:... I firmly hold that Philip is the greater. Now such a bald-faced statement does need a little explanation. I am of the opinion that while they are many qualities and deficiencies that we may attribute to each of these great kings, the final and only benchmark that should be the deciding factor is: who was the better king? And if that is the litmus test, then what defines a better king? In my humble opinion, the better king is the one who leaves his state, people, his kingdom if you will, better off than when he found it. And while we are all at times bedazzled by the almost mythical and breathtaking stature of the military accomplishments of Alexander, I truly believe that we cannot in all honesty say that he left the stronger kingdom than Philip.

I think its fair to say your litmus test would hold up as a very good way to decide the better king. But is the 'better' king always the 'greater'? We were discussing who was the greater king, and in the days of Alexander, and the days when our precious few sources were being thought up and written down, glory decided much of what a king did and seemed to be a deciding factor in who was considered great or not. Stability of the kingdom is a very big factor in finding the better king. But glory and conquest seemed to be much of the defining subjects of greatness. And if that is correct then I believe Alexander to be the 'greater'.

spitamenes wrote:

Nikas wrote:... I firmly hold that Philip is the greater. Now such a bald-faced statement does need a little explanation. I am of the opinion that while they are many qualities and deficiencies that we may attribute to each of these great kings, the final and only benchmark that should be the deciding factor is: who was the better king? And if that is the litmus test, then what defines a better king? In my humble opinion, the better king is the one who leaves his state, people, his kingdom if you will, better off than when he found it. And while we are all at times bedazzled by the almost mythical and breathtaking stature of the military accomplishments of Alexander, I truly believe that we cannot in all honesty say that he left the stronger kingdom than Philip.

I think its fair to say your litmus test would hold up as a very good way to decide the better king. But is the 'better' king always the 'greater'? We were discussing who was the greater king, and in the days of Alexander, and the days when our precious few sources were being thought up and written down, glory decided much of what a king did and seemed to be a deciding factor in who was considered great or not. Stability of the kingdom is a very big factor in finding the better king. But glory and conquest seemed to be much of the defining subjects of greatness. And if that is correct then I believe Alexander to be the 'greater'.

Nikas, I have to disagree here. The kingdom was perennially most threatened by Persia and Persia was eliminated forever. Certainly, the kingdom in the European sphere was destabilized but only at the cost of a much larger and more powerful dominion overall. It should be noted that Alexander should not be blamed for what his generals and marshalls did to his empire upon his death. Alexander did his job masterfully.

I'd be curious to see a growth comparison between the geographical size of Philip's Macedon and Alexander's Macedon. It might be surprising to reveal what I strongly suspect to be the case. And that is that Philip's Macedon perhaps grew 150%-300% beyond his original territorial bounds and that Alexander's kingdom maybe only another 500%-800%. Certainly, better than under Philip's tenure but not so much better that it can be discounted as unworthy of the title great.

Nicator wrote:And a little jab for the accursed...yes, a Macedonian army was defeated (without Alexander at the helm). Sorry, couldn't help it

That was a jab? Yes, I'm aware of the Macedonian defeats.

Nicator wrote:It's not fair to Alexander to demean him based on the collapse of his kingdom. And what a massive kingdom it was. Had he not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.

Also, like Philip, Alexander had no choice on when he died AND he did leave some choices for an heir. Who's to say what could have been had he lived another 15 to 20 years to consolidate gains and 'raise' the heir apparent.

Alexander, like any leader, can only reasonably be judged by his known actions and their consequences. There was no fully Macedonian heir because he refused to father one. It's the truth itself that "demeans" Alexander.

Nicator wrote: That is if you adhere to the tenets that Philip himself was full Macedonian. But perhaps that's what you meant when you said 'mongrel Macedonian'?

I thought what I'd written was eminently clear.

Nicator wrote:It's not fair to Alexander to demean him based on the collapse of his kingdom. And what a massive kingdom it was. Had he not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.

Why is it that everything is personal when it comes to the Macedonian conqueror and why must emotive terms always apply? The original reply to Nikas agreed with both his/her terms for comparison and the judgment reached from those terms.

Oxford online:
Demean…cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)

Which is a far cry from concluding that Philip was a better king based on the terms stated and that the greatest single cause was the complete lack of any viable heir. Such a view finds backing in Alexander's purported words that he leaves his kingdom to the strongest - if historical. If not, inaction speaks louder than words.

Nicator wrote:The kingdom was perennially most threatened by Persia and Persia was eliminated forever [...] Had he [Alexander] not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.

I would like to see the substantiated argument that posits a Persian invasion of Macedon prior to Philip and Alexander invading the Empire.

Nicator wrote:It should be noted that Alexander should not be blamed for what his generals and marshalls did to his empire upon his death.

No: Alexander cannot be blamed for actions taken by others after his death; he can be "blamed" for enabling the entire scenario.

Nicator wrote:Alexander did his job masterfully.

Indeed. He laid up an entire store house of incendiaries amidst a group of pyromaniacs, left and failed to supply any manager of the lock and key and wondered why the entire facility burned to the ground.

Paralus wrote:Nicator wrote:
That is if you adhere to the tenets that Philip himself was full Macedonian. But perhaps that's what you meant when you said 'mongrel Macedonian'?


I thought what I'd written was eminently clear.

...well, I was trying to give you an out on that one Paralus. But, take it or leave it. Alexander himself was a half-breed and the Macedonians seemed to accept him quite readily. There's no reason to believe that they would not have done the same in time with the child of Rhoxanne. Granted, a Macedonian woman could have gifted the empire with a child that would be more readily accepted. And Philip may himself have been fathered by an out-kingdom suppliant. We'll just never know on that accord either.

Paralus wrote:Nicator wrote:
It's not fair to Alexander to demean him based on the collapse of his kingdom. And what a massive kingdom it was. Had he not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.


Why is it that everything is personal when it comes to the Macedonian conqueror and why must emotive terms always apply? The original reply to Nikas agreed with both his/her terms for comparison and the judgment reached from those terms.

Oxford online:
Demean…cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)

Evidently, you are distressed over the word 'demean'? Nevertheless, I think it appropriate for your comments on Alexander's 'failure'. He died. It's not a failure. It's an early and untimely ending. Not Alexander's fault.

Paralus wrote:Nicator wrote:
The kingdom was perennially most threatened by Persia and Persia was eliminated forever [...] Had he [Alexander] not taken the whole of the Persian empire, lock, stock, and barrel, it would have been at his doorstep within a few years.


I would like to see the substantiated argument that posits a Persian invasion of Macedon prior to Philip and Alexander invading the Empire.

Macedon was the causeway between Asia and Greece. Over and over throughout recorded history (recent to the time under consideration) we see Persia in Macedon on the way to Greece. Though, certainly, the Persians didn't have a concern over Macedon in the earlier engagements. In Philip's era, Macedon was certainly on the list of things to be concerned over. I would like to see a lot of 'substantiated arguments' but that doesn't mean I'm going to get them either. Though you qualified your statement with the word 'prior' to...I would have you explain just what Persia would have done with the war started on their soil already. I guess, ignore it and hope it goes away? Is it your contention that if Philip completed the annexation of Asia Minor, Persia would NOT react?

Paralus wrote:Nicator wrote:
It should be noted that Alexander should not be blamed for what his generals and marshalls did to his empire upon his death.


No: Alexander cannot be blamed for actions taken by others after his death; he can be "blamed" for enabling the entire scenario.

Nicator wrote:
Alexander did his job masterfully.


Indeed. He laid up an entire store house of incendiaries amidst a group of pyromaniacs, left and failed to supply any manager of the lock and key and wondered why the entire facility burned to the ground.

So, it is your contention that Alexander should never have gone to war with Persia...? I ask this because it seems ridiculous to claim that Alexander had some choice here. Once the war was underway, and this was before Alexander came to the throne, it had to be brought to some viable conclusion. Who's to say that Philip was responsible for Alexander NOT having time to father a child and begin the succession years earlier? Or, wasn't it just as much Philip's doing in regards to your entire scenario? It's easy to blame Alexander for NOT engaging and marrying some woman and bestowing her with a child at the outset. But it's also somewhat silly. While still in Europe, Alexander was very young and idyllic in his outlook...and very likely extremely put off by Philip's many peccadillos. Furthermore, Alexander evidently had a vision of greatness and accomplishment for himself that transcended Philip's ideals. That being said, I think to expect Alexander to go down that road at that time is to demand too much. And once out of country, the opportunity never again presented itself. So, again, wasn't this largely Philip's doing? It seems like blaming other's for Alexander's problems but Philip was the one person in his life that had primary, and almost sole, responsibility for crafting the young man's psyche.