Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander

[Paralus]

Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true.

And that would be because it isn't true.

Philip came to power in the immediate shadow of his brother's death on the battlefield against the Illyrian Bardyllis - along with some 4,000 Macedonians. Bardyllis was preparing an invasion of what was left of Macedonia and the Paeonians were planning likewise. Whilst this was happening Athens, scheming of empire past and fixated upon Amphipolis, produced the pretender Argaeus and "dispatched Mantias as general with three thousand hoplites and a considerable naval force" in support of him. Not to be outdone, the Thracians mobilised in support of "a certain Pausanias who was related to the royal line of Macedon" and prepared "to join the contest for the throne of Macedon" (Diod.16.2.6).

Clearly a perfect time to inherit the "kingdom" with "all the pieces laid out before Philip". Pieces is the perfect word: a kingdom in pieces.

how long was Alexander out of country on campaign? He traveled thousands of miles on foot and horse [...] How many wounds did he receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING?

What, pray tell, is remarkable about that?

[the_accursed]

As for the question, I have to say, I don't really think I have any obligation to justify my participation here. And I think it would be a good thing if you and bessusww, who asked the same question recently, would think about what it means that you ask this question. I don't believe for one moment that neither you nor bessusww think it the least bit strange in general that someone would be interested in discussing a historical person they don't like. People do so every day on the internet, and this is not news neither to you, nor to bessusww. What you think is strange is that someone would be interested in discussing Alexander without liking him. And you two really should ask yourselves why that is and what it means.

Thank you. It was a fairly straightforward question and I don't see any reason to get cryptic or convoluted, but if you don't want to answer, fine.

I just think it would be a wonderful thing if you, and others, would actually think about it. It's entirely understandable to you that someone can be interested in discussing a historical person they don't like. It's in Alexander's case, specifically, that you think it peculiar. It should be obvious to anyone that I find the period interesting, and also find discussing Alexander interesting. Not just because of Alexander himself, but to a great degree because people ask questions like the one you asked and see nothing peculiar about it at all. To you, and to many pothosians, the assumption that Alexander's case is "special" is a given. It's in his case it's unreasonable to want to discuss him without liking him. And it's astonishing to you that everyone doesn't see things the same way.

[the_accursed]

Incompetent people regularly come to power through deception. They decieve the people into believing they will be the good of the nation. but in Alexanders case, if we are to go with what you say, he was completely incompetant of making any kind of rational or decent decision. So how would he be able to decieve such a large group of able minded generals into believeing he was the best candidate for the next King?

I'm not trying to be ...confrontational, for lack of a better word.(please feel free to let me know a better one.) Because I do read with enthusiasm everything you write. But I also believe that you seem to want to bash Alexander more than you want to get your point across. Which is something you do not have to justify. But if someone confronts you about it, there should be no suprise.

It took time for Alexander's generals, and soldiers in general, to see what kind of leader he was. It was not obvious from the very beginning that he'd become the kind of king he became. It would not have been obvious to me either, had I been a Macedonian soldier back then. No one could have foreseen he'd begin to murder his own generals or demand to be worshiped as a god. I disagree that incompetent people necessarily have to be deceptive to come to power. People can be basically good and still be utterly unfit for their jobs.

As for confronting me, I have no problem with that. In a Alexander the great fan forum, and that's what this is, even if it wasn't intended to be, it's inevitable that some people will find my opinions upsetting. That I want to "bash" Alexander though is a pothosian interpretation. Were Alexander not considered a "special case" here, one people surely must like to want to disuss, then people would not consider my criticism "bashing". One great difference between me and pothosians is: I am not a fan. Not of Alexander, not of Philip, not of the Macedonians, not of the ancient Greeks, not of the Romans, not of the West, not of the East, not of any individual leader or culture at all.

[the_accursed]

No, you're just side-stepping the question here. No one has foresight. The Macedonians chose Alexander because in their judgement, he was the best candidate to continue Philip's policies and he had the best chance of maintaining stability in the kingdom. Macedonian kingship was an active, not a passive role, at this moment in time, and Alexander would have been quickly disposed of by someone more powerful if he had been as ineffective and indecisive as you appear to believe. If Parmenion and Antipater didn't believe in 336 BC (whatever they might or might not have thought in later years) that Alexander was the best choice for king in Philip's place, why didn't they throw their support behind the perfectly acceptable choice of his cousin Amyntas? Or the Lyncestians? You really need to provide an answer as to why you think these mature, experienced men showed such poor judgement in backing Alexander. If you think Alexander was simply a figurehead for them, or others, I think you need to examine why the nature of Macedonian kingship would so radically alter between Philip and Alexander's reign without a civil war breaking out.

No, it's a straightforward answer, just not one you like. The answer you'd like is: he could not possibly have been allowed to become king, had he been incompetent. Thus, the fact that he became king proves his competence. Q.E.D. Except...Macedonia produced many incompetent kings. And the history of this world is full of incompetent people becoming leaders.

But it's correct that no one, or at least very few, has sufficient foresight. The Macedonians could never have known from the very beginning that Alexander would murder generals, begin to think himself the son of a god and "orientalise". Accepting him as their king was entirely reasonable. And the same can be said for many other incompetent people who have been accepted as leaders. Alexander's is not in any way a unique case. And that really is the crux of it all: to you, and to many pothosians, he is. In his case, you think special rules should apply when we discuss him and his career. In his case, it bizarre to be interested in discussing his career without liking him. In his case, the mere fact that he became a leader proves his competence. To me, such arguments are entirely void of logic.

[the_accursed]

Fair enough, if that's what you think (as you clearly do). Obviously I don't share your view - but actually, I had sort of got the impression that you were arguing something else.

What I *thought* you were arguing was that Alexander doesn't deserve credit for conquering the known world, simply because Philip had laid the groundwork - that would have been disingenuous. I see now that you are arguing that Alexander was actually not very good and only succeeded because of what Philip had done. I vehemently disagree, and think you are entirely wrong ... but I am happy to withdraw the word disingenuous!

I appreciate that Marcus - and you've understood me correctly.

I wasn't aware that it was a rhetorical sledgehammer, either - if it was, then (a) I am quite impressed with myself, but (b) sorry you felt that way! Pax?

ATB

Absolutely. Some might not think it here, but I much prefer peace to war.

[the_accursed]

What I *thought* you were arguing was that Alexander doesn't deserve credit for conquering the known world, simply because Philip had laid the groundwork - that would have been disingenuous. I see now that you are arguing that Alexander was actually not very good and only succeeded because of what Philip had done.

I think I've got to add, re: "not very good" that that's my general opinion of Alexander as king. As military commander specifically, it's more a matter of having applied Occam's razor to his career. The Macedonian army was in my opinion just as superior when Philip was their king as it was after his death. And to me, the most reasonable explanation for this is not that Alexander must have been a military genius, one capable of immediately stepping into Philip's shoes. Rather, I think it's the other way around: Alexander seems a "military genius" to some because of the greatness of his army. The Macedonians in my opinion won because they were better than their opponents. They won with Alexander, but would also (in my opinion) have won had Cassander been their king. And had he been their king, he'd today be known as Cassander the great, and many would be convinced that he must have been a military genius.

[spitamenes]

Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true.

And that would be because it isn't true.

Err, yeah. That was the point I was trying to make to begin with. It is not true. philip had to work for what he accomplished. The same way Alexander was not able to just sit and watch his world empire build itself.

[spitamenes]

Again... we can say this about ANY king or ANY kingdom. I can say "all the pieces were laid out before Philip for him to create his army and bring Macedonia up from the dirt." It doesn't make it entirely true.

And that would be because it isn't true.

Philip came to power in the immediate shadow of his brother's death on the battlefield against the Illyrian Bardyllis - along with some 4,000 Macedonians. Bardyllis was preparing an invasion of what was left of Macedonia and the Paeonians were planning likewise. Whilst this was happening Athens, scheming of empire past and fixated upon Amphipolis, produced the pretender Argaeus and "dispatched Mantias as general with three thousand hoplites and a considerable naval force" in support of him. Not to be outdone, the Thracians mobilised in support of "a certain Pausanias who was related to the royal line of Macedon" and prepared "to join the contest for the throne of Macedon" (Diod.16.2.6).

Clearly a perfect time to inherit the "kingdom" with "all the pieces laid out before Philip". Pieces is the perfect word: a kingdom in pieces.

how long was Alexander out of country on campaign? He traveled thousands of miles on foot and horse [...] How many wounds did he receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING?

What, pray tell, is remarkable about that?

Please tell me which is NOT remarkable? It might not be remarkable for a soldier, but if the leader of my county received wounds in combat? I would find that pretty remarkable.

[Paralus]

how long was Alexander out of country on campaign? He traveled thousands of miles on foot and horse [...] How many wounds did he receive while fighting in the ranks as a KING?

What, pray tell, is remarkable about that?

Please tell me which is NOT remarkable? It might not be remarkable for a soldier, but if the leader of my county received wounds in combat? I would find that pretty remarkable.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about Alexander being wounded "while fighting in the ranks as a KING" (your emphasis) and I utterly fail to understand why you would think so. Please excuse me for answering a question with a question (though I am not the first) , but why should the fact that Alexander was wounded leading his army - on foot or horse - be anything of any great note?

[spitamenes]

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about Alexander being wounded "while fighting in the ranks as a KING" (your emphasis) and I utterly fail to understand why you would think so. Please excuse me for answering a question with a question (though I am not the first) , but why should the fact that Alexander was wounded leading his army - on foot or horse - be anything of any great note?

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.
There were setbacks. Alexander was not flawless. I'm sure words around camp were extreemely harsh at times. But when it came down to it, the soldiers trusted they're king to keep them on the correct path to glory and most important, booty. For them to even leave Macedonia without knowing where they're next payday was coming from took great trust in they're King. They would not follow just anyone under these conditions. I would say the only one besides Alexander would have been Philip.

[Alexias]

I just think it would be a wonderful thing if you, and others, would actually think about it. It's entirely understandable to you that someone can be interested in discussing a historical person they don't like. It's in Alexander's case, specifically, that you think it peculiar. It should be obvious to anyone that I find the period interesting, and also find discussing Alexander interesting. Not just because of Alexander himself, but to a great degree because people ask questions like the one you asked and see nothing peculiar about it at all. To you, and to many pothosians, the assumption that Alexander's case is "special" is a given. It's in his case it's unreasonable to want to discuss him without liking him. And it's astonishing to you that everyone doesn't see things the same way.

I'm sorry, Accursed, but that answer is smug and superior. You are saying that everyone else on this site, except you who have the intelligence and wisdom not to be blinded by Alexander's glamour, is a naive fan worshipper who is oblivious to Alexander's faults. This is not true. There are many intelligent people on this site who are perfectly capable of realising without your help that were Alexander alive today he would be as hated as Hitler, that he was a man of blood and violence, and very far from perfect. All I asked was a simple question: life is short; why are you wasting it on something you despise? I'm not asking for a reply now though because I've lost interest.

[the_accursed]

I'm sorry, Accursed, but that answer is smug and superior. You are saying that everyone else on this site, except you who have the intelligence and wisdom not to be blinded by Alexander's glamour, is a naive fan worshipper who is oblivious to Alexander's faults. This is not true. There are many intelligent people on this site who are perfectly capable of realising without your help that were Alexander alive today he would be as hated as Hitler, that he was a man of blood and violence, and very far from perfect. All I asked was a simple question: life is short; why are you wasting it on something you despise? I'm not asking for a reply now though because I've lost interest.

I can see why you would not want a reply to such a post. First you accuse me of jealousy, then of being smug and superior. I think you should focus on the arguments and not on the person.

As for what I'm saying, I'm saying that it's unremarkable to be interested in discussing a historical person one doesn't like. People do it every day in history forums on the internet, and I'm pretty sure you know that and don't think it peculiar. Not in general. It's Alexander I apparently ought not want to discuss. But certainly not because you don't like my opinions. No, it's the shortness of life and how I spend my precious time that is your concern.

[Alexias]

No, it's a straightforward answer, just not one you like. The answer you'd like is: he could not possibly have been allowed to become king, had he been incompetent. Thus, the fact that he became king proves his competence. Q.E.D. Except...Macedonia produced many incompetent kings. And the history of this world is full of incompetent people becoming leaders.

But it's correct that no one, or at least very few, has sufficient foresight. The Macedonians could never have known from the very beginning that Alexander would murder generals, begin to think himself the son of a god and "orientalise". Accepting him as their king was entirely reasonable. And the same can be said for many other incompetent people who have been accepted as leaders. Alexander's is not in any way a unique case. And that really is the crux of it all: to you, and to many pothosians, he is. In his case, you think special rules should apply when we discuss him and his career. In his case, it bizarre to be interested in discussing his career without liking him. In his case, the mere fact that he became a leader proves his competence. To me, such arguments are entirely void of logic.

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.

[amyntoros]

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,

[marcus]

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,

Well, off the top of my head: William I, William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, (don't know if Richard II ever had the chance), Henry IV, Henry V, (Don't think Henry VI actually led his troops, but he was certainly present at the battles), Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII (before he was king, at least), Henry VIII ... not sure if Charles I and II, James II or George I ever did so; but anyway, the last English king actually to lead his troops in battle was George II at Dettingen (1743) ...

ATB