pothos.org

Hello, It is a pleasure to find a forum dedicated to Alexander. I am new here but will jump in head first and state that in my humble opinion history has not been kind to Philip II who warrants the title of "Great" more if not the same as Alexander. I believe we cannot underestimate the brilliance of Philip who inherited a shattered Macedonia and transformed it into the dominant power of the Meditterrenean in a couple of decades. Alexander was a brilliant general but based on what we know of his personality would he have been able to accomplish what Philip did? I for one do not believe so but I eagerly await your learned opinions. Regards,

sorry for the double post. I refreshed by mistake.

Hi Diomedes,
I'm in total aggreance with you ;)Cheers!

You musn't have rad most of the recent literature - these days scholars fall all over themselves praising Philip.Was Philip better than Alexander? There is a reason hsitory relates the brilliance of the son over the father. Philip was a great King, but Alexander was the greater.Regards,Tre

Welcome,Phillip is credited by some writers correctly and ignored by others, he put it all together.On the surface I say Alexander had a different style, while Phillip maybe relyed on Parmenion's advice more, Alexander used it only occasionally.
History is rife with mistakes and that is why scholars are led up the garden path. We hav'nt even scratched the surface of the translations yet.
here is an example:16.91.1- (Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes with an English Translation by C. H. Oldfather. Vol. 4-8. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. 1989.Wreathed is the bull. All is done. There is also the one who will smite him.(English Translation of below)esteptai men ho tauros, echei telos, estin ho thus+¦n - (is this Greek?)estepatai mazhen ko vou(r)lo, ekai stelosh, vistin ko tiusonn GÇô (My modern Macedonian)enmurder men as a bull, towards (the) severity/end, as is/same as in your dream GÇô (My English translation of Macedonian)I would really like to see the original skele characters to be 101% sure of my translations.

Pela, sorry I don't understand!Tre,name me one concept of greatness that Philip hadn't already achieved prior to his sons inheritance of a full platter. Dinner was already eaten and the cake was already baked, ATG managed to put the iceing on top!
just my thoughts
cheers!

Hello Diomedes
Welcome to the forum. No one can doubt Philip's brilliance or his achievements, but why must one denigrate the son to praise the father? Or vice versa? Surely both can be studied and appreciated as individuals who brought their talents to bear on the circumstances that their lives and place in time presented to them. Both did great things from humble beginnings. Philip took a fragmented kingdom and made it a power. But Philip hadn't made a finished product to hand on to his son. At Philip's death, that kingdom began to fragment again. It took Alexander two years to pull the pieces back together and stablize the region, something that often seems to be forgotten by those who prefer Philip to Alexander. It wasn't an easy, walk-over thing to become King of Makedon. It took work and skill to hold it all together, let alone to take it and build it into an empire. So, praise Philip's achievements by all means, but don't try to lessen Alexander's to do so.
Best regards
Halil

King Philip the second was the most important figure in the history of man! He created the first professional army, the Greeks had mercenary solders but the debate between mercenary solder and a professional army could be a never ending argument. The Spartans had a well disciplined army for many years but they had no universal currency, Philip paid his army well Philip invented war games and his army trained between wars like the Spartans they lived military 365 days a year. Philip invented new weapons, improved a copy of other army's weapons and he and Alexander made small moveable artillery that could be assembled and disassembled quickly. Philip improved sewer systems and water ways he also organized the mints with the same system we use today. Philip was an intelligent politician he would rather negotiate a peace (or truce) of consolidation and use force as a last resort plus he would treat the army he defeated with respect and grant freedom within. Did I mention he invented his version of the short sword long before the Romans knew what a short sword looked like. But the best general in history (before the gun powder age) no doubt in my mind, ATG stands alone second to no one!

Hi Diomedes, First, welcome to this forum. The history cannot forget the great accomplishments of Philip II, neither neglect " the Greatest of the kings in Europe" (Diodorus Siculus), nor "the man who conquered Greece, made Macedon a formidable power in the Balkans and planned to invade Asia". Alexander was really fortunate to have Philip II as his own father - actually, he inherited everything from him in such a perfect condition: well trained and numbered army equipped with innovated weapons from one side and stable, larger country and borders from the other. He didn't lose time to train the army, to make innovations, to find a way to increase the population capable to fight..... he inherited one absolutely perfect situation. That's why he admired Philip so much and that's why tried to surpass and imitate him: city-foundation in his own name, to reach Danube and ... to cross it, to transfer population throughout his kingdom, to punish Thebes, to conquer the Persian Empire, to try to arrange his divine cult during his lifetime....etc.
So, Philip's influence on Alexander in this respect is undeniable, don't you think so?In my opinion, Philip was the Greatest King, but Alexander was the Greatest Military Leader and Taktician... so, as a team (Philip as a King of Macedon and ATG as a Commander-in-chief of the Macedonian Army), they would have been really invincible and would have created the Greatest and Long-lasting Kingdom.Regards, Poliksena

Andrew,I agree that Phillip was a great king/man; worthy of respect in his own right, however, I would query some of your comments-1. What has the lack of a universal currency to do with whether or not the Spartan's could be considered the first professional army? I would say the Spartan's were at least as professional as the Macedonians regardless of their economic system. Also, don't forget the Assyrians!2. It would probably take more than Phillip acheived to earn the title the most important figure in history- would he even be remembered by western civilisation if it were not for his son. Indeed would Macedon be remembered were it not for ATG.Kit

Hi Diomedes,To turn your question on it's head a little- do you believe that Phillip would have achieved what Alexander did?I have to be honest, I don't. I believe Alexander could have united Greece as Phillip did, although he would probably have used military means as a first choice rather than the last resort (as Phillip would have done).If Phillip had been offered the concessions that Darius made to Alexander it is likely he would have taken them. Ironically this would probably have created a more viable Macedonian empire, but one that would not have caught the 'historical imagination' to the extent that Alexander's did!In short, it's unlikley that a Phillip would have generated as much debate 2,300+ years on as his son has done!I rate Phillip very highly, but Alexander higher!regardsKit.

I stand by the two part video,"Macedonia Land Of A God", as my evidence. No culture came from Sparta, except for their military the city state(?) was a joke (Hadrian)! Like I said, the debate on the definition of, the professional army, could be a never ending story. I recognize the Assyrians, and the Thessalians were the original cowboys but I don't believe their military (except for Sparta) was as organized as the Macedon army was under Philip. I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it on this one but I will keep a open mind on this subject and maybe, in the future, you'll change it. Thanks for keeping this debate on Philip healthy.

Hi Andrew,I have to admit I'm utterly confused by your idea of what constitutes a professional army in the ancient world. From the tenor of your posts, it seems to me that you're using 'professional' to mean 'highly-trained'. They are not synonomous terms. A professional soldier in ancient Greece was a soldier who remained under arms year round, whether in active campaigns, garrison duty, patrols, training, what have you. Nor is the status of professional conferred or denied by any manner of pay the soldier might have received for his blood, sweat, and tears. No, a professional soldier was one who did not go home to their farms and businesses at the end of campaigning season (early summer to early autumn). Soldiering was their sole occupation. This wasn't a Macedonian invention. The Spartans were the first to organize their society in such a way as to allow their soldiers the luxury of doing nothing else. In return, the state gave them a plot of land and slaves to work it. Since they were still constrained by the seasons, the Spartans were able to drill and train in the winter and early spring for the coming campaign year. This training regimen transformed what was once a citizen militia into an elite hoplite force. All the while, the Athenians were doing the same thing, though in a different medium. They concentrated on building a professional navy while relying on the old style citizen militia for land defense. The Peloponnesian War changed all this.Though rarely used in mainland Hellas before, armies of professional mercenaries came into their own during the Spartan-Athenian war. Though all soldiers were paid, either in coin or in kind, a professional mercenary's sole loyalty was to gold. They did not care about the politics of a situation, only whether or not it would net them spoils. Most were professional soldiers defeated in battle, their homes destroyed, who were now forced to farm out their skills in order to make a living; others were adventurers drawn by the promise of loot. Both sides hired these sorts of men to bolster their regular armies, which were thinned by casualties. After the War, some of these men returned home to rebuild or settled on whatever land their Spartan masters allowed them. Others, still restless, made for Asia.

The army of Cyrus the Younger, which included Xenophon, was a professional Greek mercenary army -- Greek soldiers under arms year-round fighting for glory and gold; they were commanded by a Spartan, Clearchus, with a backbone of his own countrymen. The rest were Athenians, Argives, Corinthians, Thessalians, Thebans, etc. Were they not as highly-trained as what they were, as hardened by warfare, they would have never survived the aftermath of Cunaxa and the slaughter of their officers by the Persians.So, as you can see, Philip of Macedon did not create the professional army, nor does he deserve sole credit for churning out highly-trained soldiers. Philip's genius lay in integrating his varied combat arms and training them to attack in concert, to use cavalry and infantry together rather than focusing on one to the detriment of the other. According to JFC Fuller ("The Generalship of Alexander the Great") Philip was ". . .determined to combine the skill of the mercenary with the loyalty of the city militiaman." I think history proves how well a job he did.Regards,Scott Oden
Sources:JFC Fuller: "The Generalship of Alexander the Great"
VD Hanson: "The Wars of the Ancient Greeks"
Thucydides: "History of the Peloponnesian War"
Xenophon: "Anabasis" and "Hellenica"

I agree with you 100% Phillip set the stage for Alexander. To begin with Phillip united Macedonia which was some what splintered into little Kingdoms Philip II united all of Macedonia and began bringin the poor herdsmen of upper Macedonia down onto the plain to settle them agriculturally in the fashion of lower Macedonians.In addition Phillip used the institution of the Macedonian Monarchy to his advantage.Despite the changes in the Greek world and the disunity that faced Macedonia the country did have one advantage over its neighbors, it was a monarchy. Macedonia did not have to break through the city-state habit of mind, for it had clung to the Homeric style monarchy.This allowed Philip to execute his plans without interference.Phillip defeated the Illyrians helping to secure Macedonia's northern border and by the brilliant omacy and force created the alliance of Greek states at Corinth securing his southern position.Phillip expanded Macedonias boundries as well as uniting the country.Prior to Phillips rule
Macedonia was constantly subject to invasion from the north as well as political stability from within.Phillip was indeed a political genius.However this does not take away from Alexander who inherited his Fathers political and military genius along with his Mothers passion and took it to a higher level.