Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[spitamenes]

Well normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm. Alexander is one of the few commanders in history to lead his army from the front. I do not see how that would be considered anything less than remarkable. He led by example. That is one of the reasons why his men followed him as long as they did.

Hmm, Spitamenes, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Am wondering if you mean something about the way Alexander lead his army from the front because history is actually replete with armies being led into battle by their kings. Marcus can probably list the English kings (because I can't really remember ) but as far as I recall it was accepted - if not required - that medieval kings led their troops into battle. And in ancient times, both Philip and Leonidas come immediately to mind.

Best regards,

My apologies, I can see how this can be confusing and I should have been a bit more clear. I had to take a course on Military commanders and Innovations in command years ago and as you can imagine, Alexander was talked about on more than a couple occasions. One of the points made was how he was able to adapt to certain situations and take command on foot, in his cavalry unit, and taking the helm during sea battles. As he did at tyre. One of the points being, not many Military commanders in history were able to lead his army from so many different positions. I myself, find that to be a remarkable trait of Alexander.

[Paralus]

Well normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm. Alexander is one of the few commanders in history to lead his army from the front. I do not see how that would be considered anything less than remarkable. He led by example. That is one of the reasons why his men followed him as long as they did.

One of the points made was how he was able to adapt to certain situations and take command on foot, in his cavalry unit, and taking the helm during sea battles. As he did at tyre. One of the points being, not many Military commanders in history were able to lead his army from so many different positions. I myself, find that to be a remarkable trait of Alexander

I think the original statement is clear enough: "normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm"; the clear inference being that Alexander was different and so remarkable. This is, of course, clearly untrue as others have begun to point out. Philip II is documented as "leading from the front" and his brother, Perdiccas, died doing so ("while he himself [Philip] falling on the enemy in a frontal assault began bitter combat..."Philip was engaged in battle with Pleurias, king of the Illyrians, Pausanias stepped in front of him and, receiving on his body all the blows directed at the king" Diod.16.4.5 & 93.6). What Alexander did was clearly expected of a Macedonian king and not unusual.

Indeed, it was not unusual and was expected of other commanders in ancient times. Agesilaos, the Spartan king, was carried from the field at Coronea where he'd received many wounds leading in the front ranks. His co-king, Kleombrotus, (in)famously died leading from the front at Leuktra. Lest we limit this to Spartans, Epaminondas died leading the Thebans at Mantinea 362 and his justifiably famous "co-general", Pelopidas, died leading the attack on Alexander of Pherae. Cyrus (the "pretender") died leading his rebel army against his brother Artaxerxes at Cunaxa. Bardyllis, the Illyrian king, lead his forces against Philip at an advanced age.

As far as versatility in command is concerned, Athenian and Spartan generals had, for years, been leading ground troops and naval operations. Philip, though poorly attested (where are Theopompos' 58 books of his Philipica when you need them?) will almost certainly have led foot and cavalry. Tyre is, I'm afraid, no good example of Alexander "taking the helm during sea battles". The action is, at bottom, that of a siege and Alexander is only described as leading the fleet to Tyre posted on its right wing and chasing a small Tyrian squadron during the siege. In any case in this he is no different to the father as Polyaenus (4.2.22) indicates.

As can readily be seen, singling out Alexander as "remarkable" in these things is elevate the expected and the normal to something they clearly are not. That apllies equally to wounds he received "while fighting in the ranks as a KING".

[spitamenes]

And again, I will disagree. I believe a king to be leading from the front to be remarkable. As marcus points out, just in england alone, there were many. It contradicts my original statement but I've never been one to not admit when my words were incorrect. And at that time they definately were. I had my sources confused and I apologize for it. But that still doesn't stop me from thinking that it would be remarkable for a king to lead his men in battle.

[spitamenes]

Well normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm. Alexander is one of the few commanders in history to lead his army from the front. I do not see how that would be considered anything less than remarkable. He led by example. That is one of the reasons why his men followed him as long as they did.

One of the points made was how he was able to adapt to certain situations and take command on foot, in his cavalry unit, and taking the helm during sea battles. As he did at tyre. One of the points being, not many Military commanders in history were able to lead his army from so many different positions. I myself, find that to be a remarkable trait of Alexander

I think the original statement is clear enough: "normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm";

And I do not see anything wrong with the original statement. I do not believe it to be in any way normal for a king to be in the front lines. It has happened, clearly, but I would have to believe more kings have commanded from safety than in the line of fire.

[Paralus]

And again, I will disagree. I believe a king to be leading from the front to be remarkable.

It clearly was not remarkable in Alexander's own time and in the times of Marcus' examples. In Alexander's time (both before and following) it was normal and expected. Had Alexander "commanded from safety [rather] than in the line of fire" his army will most likely have considered him "a spineless cheerleader type".

I think the original statement is clear enough: "normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm";

And I do not see anything wrong with the original statement. I do not believe it to be in any way normal for a king to be in the front lines. It has happened, clearly, but I would have to believe more kings have commanded from safety than in the line of fire.

That is not the entire original statement - merely my focal point from it. Your contention, in its entirety, is:

Well normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm. Alexander is one of the few commanders in history to lead his army from the front. I do not see how that would be considered anything less than remarkable. He led by example. That is one of the reasons why his men followed him as long as they did.

As I (and others) have endeavored to show, that is incorrect. Alexander is most certainly not even one of "the few commanders" of his own era to lead by example. In classical and Hellenistic times this was utterly normal and Alexander is absolutely unremarkable in this regard. To claim that Alexander - as a king of Macedon or as a commander - was "remarkable" because he led his army in person and "in the line of fire" is misplaced adoration.

[spitamenes]

And again, I will disagree. I believe a king to be leading from the front to be remarkable.

It clearly was not remarkable in Alexander's own time and in the times of Marcus' examples. In Alexander's time (both before and following) it was normal and expected. Had Alexander "commanded from safety [rather] than in the line of fire" his army will most likely have considered him "a spineless cheerleader type".

I think the original statement is clear enough: "normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm";

And I do not see anything wrong with the original statement. I do not believe it to be in any way normal for a king to be in the front lines. It has happened, clearly, but I would have to believe more kings have commanded from safety than in the line of fire.

That is not the entire original statement - merely my focal point from it. Your contention, in its entirety, is:

Well normally kings would be very far from any kind of chance for physical harm. Alexander is one of the few commanders in history to lead his army from the front. I do not see how that would be considered anything less than remarkable. He led by example. That is one of the reasons why his men followed him as long as they did.

As I (and others) have endeavored to show, that is incorrect. Alexander is most certainly not even one of "the few commanders" of his own era to lead by example. In classical and Hellenistic times this was utterly normal and Alexander is absolutely unremarkable in this regard. To claim that Alexander - as a king of Macedon or as a commander - was "remarkable" because he led his army in person and "in the line of fire" is misplaced adoration.

If I gave credit to ALL Kings who commanded from the front, would it make a difference? I don't think Alexander should be held higher than every other king because he commanded from the front lines. I'm just saying its remarkable that he did. I believe its remarkable that ANY king would. I already discussed how I know some previous words of mine were incorrect. But even so. I cannot believe that a king who fights next to his men, receives the same wounds they do, and takes the same chances they have to take, to be unremarkable. That's just how I feel about it.

[spitamenes]

Well, Paralus. I resorted to looking up the word 'remakable'. it has 'noteworthy' and 'worth mentioning'. But also has 'unique' and 'without equal'. So as it has been made very clear, what he did was not 'unique', but in my opinion, I do believe it to be 'worth mentioning' and 'noteworthy'. Like I said though. Its just my opinion.

[spitamenes]

Well, Paralus. I resorted to looking up the word 'remarkable'. it has 'noteworthy' and 'worth mentioning'. But also has 'unique' and 'without equal'. So as it has been made very clear, what he did was not 'unique', but in my opinion, I do believe it to be 'worth mentioning' and 'noteworthy'. Like I said though. Its just my opinion.

[Paralus]

Well, Paralus. I resorted to looking up the word 'remakable'. it has 'noteworthy' and 'worth mentioning'. But also has 'unique' and 'without equal'. So as it has been made very clear, what he did was not 'unique', but in my opinion, I do believe it to be 'worth mentioning' and 'noteworthy'. Like I said though. Its just my opinion.

It is "worth mentioning" that Alexander lead his army in person and did so "in the line of fire". In the context of a thread ostensibly comparing Philip II with Alexander III it is, though, absolutely incorrect to claim that Alexander was "remarkable" for doing exactly what was expected of him as if this sets him apart from Philip. Philip did exactly those things. It is also a non-starter to ask (rhetorically or otherwise) "how many wounds did he [Alexander] receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING?" when his father likely received as many if not more doing exactly the same thing (a nice summary provided by Demosthenes 18.67). This is not a point of departure between the two.

[the_accursed]

No, it isn't a straight answer, or to be precise, it isn't a specific answer. Spitamenes asked you why, if Alexander was incompetent, he was allowed to become king. Your generalised answer was - lots of incompetent people become rulers. True. But I asked you specifically why men like Parmenion and Antipater failed to see that incompetence, or if they did, why they turned a blind eye to it. Come on, use a bit of imagination and hypothosize as to their motives and give me a specific answer that will set people thinking, instead of just demeaning generalisations about my intelligence.

Could I also ask, do you have any idea of the kinds of deeds the Successors (and others) were guilty of? Antigonus tried to starve Eumenes to death, Olympias did starve Eurydice and Arrhidaeus, Cassander has Olympias stoned to death. Perdiccas (or Roxane) had Stateira and Drypetis thrown into a well. He had Cynane killed. Cassander killed Roxane and Alexander IV. Antigonus killed Cleopatra, Cassander's son killed his mother Thessalonike. And the list goes on. Power plays are not pretty, whether they are Alexander's or anyone else's.

No. I don't feel like indulging you anymore. You've asked me to justify my participation here. You've helpfully suggested it's a case of sour grapes. I've told you people discuss historical people every day that they don't like, and that there's nothing strange about that. You mentioned Hitler in one of your posts. I can assure you, he's a popular topic of discussion in history forums in spite of the fact that most people don't like him. Nor are they jealous of him. You've suggested that participation here is a waste of my – but apparently not your – time. I've suggested you should ask yourself why it is in Alexander's case you think one should only want to discuss him if one likes him. I've said I see no logic in such a claim, nor in the claim that the mere fact that he became king proves his competence. You've replied I'm being smug and superior and are making demeaning generalizations about your intelligence. And for me, that's the end of this discussion.

[marcus]

Philip did exactly those things. It is also a non-starter to ask (rhetorically or otherwise) "how many wounds did he [Alexander] receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING?" when his father likely received as many if not more doing exactly the same thing (a nice summary provided by Demosthenes 18.67). This is not a point of departure between the two.

Indeed, Philip's wounds might be considered to have been more obvious to the common soldiery than Alexander's - after the fact, that is. There were a number of occasions when Alexander had to be carried away from the fight, not least from the Mallian town ... but once he was up and about again, we are given no sense that there was any permanent, obvious damage done ... it's not as if he was lamed, or reduced to one eye!

I also agree that not only was it not remarkable for the king to be leading from the front, but it was also absolutely expected. A king who did not lead his troops into battle would not be king for much longer - the ability to lead troops was an absolute sine qua non of kingship, in the ancient as well as the medieval period. I would suggest that one of the main reasons why Alexander received no serious opposition to his taking the throne was that he was a proven warrior ... and that was why it was so easy for Philip to take the reins of government in 358 BC - young Amyntas, being but a baby, had nothing to recommend him to a kingdom which needed a strong leader who could defend the kingdom against its enemies.

ATB

[spitamenes]

Well, Paralus. I resorted to looking up the word 'remakable'. it has 'noteworthy' and 'worth mentioning'. But also has 'unique' and 'without equal'. So as it has been made very clear, what he did was not 'unique', but in my opinion, I do believe it to be 'worth mentioning' and 'noteworthy'. Like I said though. Its just my opinion.

It is "worth mentioning" that Alexander lead his army in person and did so "in the line of fire". In the context of a thread ostensibly comparing Philip II with Alexander III it is, though, absolutely incorrect to claim that Alexander was "remarkable" for doing exactly what was expected of him as if this sets him apart from Philip. Philip did exactly those things.

And there is absolutely no time in the original post where I was stating Alexander to be better than Philip. And I do not see how you even inturpreted it that way. I was actually commending Philip in the post. The reason for the "non starter" question was a defense of the statements being made about Alexander coming in at the last minute and stealing all the glory from Philip. In which I undoubtedly disagree. Like I stated before, Philip used the tools he was given, and even created many of the ones he used. But Alexander did that as well. Alexander "fan" or not, I cannot see how it is possible to believe Alexander did nothing for all those years on campaign, and (a) his generals did not react, and (b) he ended up getting all the glory anyway. Which is the reason for my 'how many years' statement.

[Paralus]

With regard to Alexanders great generals....Its well documented that he just about ignored every bit of advice given by Parmenio and what do you know he still won [...] I doubt the great Generals had the ammount of experience with Siege warfare as Alexander taught them with a great record in it.

Kenny, you need to assess the historicity of the "blackening tradition" that has grown about Parmenion. Also, that statement about Philip's generals' experience of siege warfare ignores Philip's long history of siege warfare. Did Alexander change all of Philip's generals before departing Greece? If he did not then these generals were well experienced in sieges.

[Paralus]

And there is absolutely no time in the original post where I was stating Alexander to be better than Philip. And I do not see how you even inturpreted it that way.

Simply by virtue of your expressed opinion on the matter - which you've made plain. For example:

I don't imagine we would be reading too much about Philip if Alexander didn't do what he did.

Which you qualified by saying

And to be fair, I don't imagine we would be reading too much about Alexander if Philip didn't do what he did.

Quickly followed by a return to the original line which you have defended since

People read of Philip because of Alexander, not the other way around. Philip is a player in the field of Alexander

One wonders why Theopompus thought to write a 58 book history of the "player in the field of Alexander". Or Anaximenes.

Against that background, and in a thread comparing the two, you lauded Alexander as on of the "few" commanders in history to lead from the ranks and commended his command ability even at sea. No such acknowledgment was given to Philip and so one is left to infer that you see Alexander as a daring lead from the front commander and his father as something different. Indeed you argued that kings would mostly command from a position of safety - no mention that you thought Philip might have commanded from the ranks in the line of fire.

I may have read you wrong - apologies if so - but it seems you have taken a forthright position on the question and I read those posts as defending it.

[spitamenes]

And there is absolutely no time in the original post where I was stating Alexander to be better than Philip. And I do not see how you even inturpreted it that way.

Simply by virtue of your expressed opinion on the matter - which you've made plain. For example:

I don't imagine we would be reading too much about Philip if Alexander didn't do what he did.

Which you qualified by saying

And to be fair, I don't imagine we would be reading too much about Alexander if Philip didn't do what he did.

Quickly followed by a return to the original line which you have defended since

People read of Philip because of Alexander, not the other way around. Philip is a player in the field of Alexander

One wonders why Theopompus thought to write a 58 book history of the "player in the field of Alexander". Or Anaximenes.

Against that background, and in a thread comparing the two, you lauded Alexander as on of the "few" commanders in history to lead from the ranks and commended his command ability even at sea. No such acknowledgment was given to Philip and so one is left to infer that you see Alexander as a daring lead from the front commander and his father as something different. Indeed you argued that kings would mostly command from a position of safety - no mention that you thought Philip might have commanded from the ranks in the line of fire.

I may have read you wrong - apologies if so - but it seems you have taken a forthright position on the question and I read those posts as defending it.

Fair enough. With your help I have been shown there is more written about Philip than I have originally thought. (Much thanks by the way). I've always given Alexander credit for introducing the average person to Philip because of how high profile Alexanders conquest was. But Marcus wrote in about it and, (I hope I get this right), said something about Alexander overshadowing Philip because of his popularity. And therefore he is talked about less due to that fact. (?). I'm still at a bit of a draw as to wether Alexander helps Philips case or hurts it in that area. I've always given Philip credit for his accomplishments, but I also give Alexander credit for his own accomplishments as well. And I was definately only argueing on the topic of Alexander being much more than passive during his reign.