Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 28th, 2017, 07:52 AM   #1

VorpalxBlade's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Australia
Posts: 233
Philip II of Macedon: Best Captain/General Europe Ever Produced?


I met with my friend today, and we talked about a lot of topics (American Civil War, Roman Republic etc.) and I asked him, "Who was the greatest European general in history?"

He responded, "Philip II of Macedon."

I queried further, "Why? Surely Napoleon would outclass him as a general. Even Alexander could be argued to be a more well rounded general than his father."

He replied with "Maybe, but Philip didn't inherit an army. He literally created his entire army, he revolutionized warfare. He made the first recorded national army that stood all year round. Not just an elite force like the Sacred Band, but a fully functioning army that could campaign in winter, which was unheard of in those times. And what Alexander do that Philip hadn't? Apart from mountain warfare, Philip had experience fighting Greeks, Thracian tribes, Scythians. He had experience fighting infantry based armies, cavalry based armies. I choose Philip not just because he was the first proper captain/general in European history, but because he created his own army that fought in such a way that allowed Alexander (albeit with his own skill included) to conquer Persia."

I responded, "Yeah, that's true. But what about Napoleon? He revolutionized warfare in his time?"

He replied "True somewhat, but Philip's reforms were bigger. Napoleon's reforms resulted in Napoleon controlling most of Europe either directly or through vassal states protectorates. Philip's reforms resulted in the first unification of Greece in history (a large feat of Philip's that involved extreme levels of tactics and strategy) as well as the conquest of the middle-east, the Hellenisation of the east etc."


Obviously I've formalised the dialogue quite a bit. But what do you guys think? I'm inclined to agree with him, but I know there are a lot of generals who could easily compete with Philip?

And then the question arises, what are the criteria?
VorpalxBlade is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 28th, 2017, 08:37 AM   #2

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,997
Blog Entries: 2

If the revolutionary reform of the military is at issue, I'd say Gaius Marius made a greater impact. His conquests may not have been extensive (but then again neither were Philip's) but the reforms he made created an army that built a substantial empire, and one which was far more stable than Alexander's.

Philip didn't create his army out of nothing though. He did have a standard Greek model which he altered. I'm not entirely sure how revolutionary his reworking of the cavalry was, since by all accounts his lands and Thessaly were more cavalry dominated than mainland Greece (plus given the long Persian influence on Macedon, there may have been an Asiatic rooting of the philosophy).

That's not to say the Sarissa army wasn't a huge leap forward in military organization and technology. Just that Marius IMO achieved as much, perhaps more. And he had to constantly deal with the bickering politics of Rome. As I understand it, Philip's position was a damn sight more stable.
tornada is offline  
Old June 28th, 2017, 08:44 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 3,889

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
If the revolutionary reform of the military is at issue, I'd say Gaius Marius made a greater impact. His conquests may not have been extensive (but then again neither were Philip's) but the reforms he made created an army that built a substantial empire, and one which was far more stable than Alexander's.

Philip didn't create his army out of nothing though. He did have a standard Greek model which he altered. I'm not entirely sure how revolutionary his reworking of the cavalry was, since by all accounts his lands and Thessaly were more cavalry dominated than mainland Greece (plus given the long Persian influence on Macedon, there may have been an Asiatic rooting of the philosophy).

That's not to say the Sarissa army wasn't a huge leap forward in military organization and technology. Just that Marius IMO achieved as much, perhaps more. And he had to constantly deal with the bickering politics of Rome. As I understand it, Philip's position was a damn sight more stable.
What reforms did Marius personally institute that you think were so decisively important?
aggienation is offline  
Old June 28th, 2017, 08:51 AM   #4

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,997
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
What reforms did Marius personally institute that you think were so decisively important?
Reorganizing the base from which the army was recruited.

The restructuring of the drill and of the legion's internal structures vastly improved fighting quality and pretty much created a system for a standing army, as opposed to a seasonal one. As I understand it, after the Marian Reforms, the Army became a career, not an obligation as it had been earlier.

Marius also expanded the military base of the Roman Army by beginning the handing out of large scale Roman Citizenship to allied cities. That was as much a social revolution that would go on to change the character of European societal structures, as it was a military one
tornada is offline  
Old June 28th, 2017, 09:03 AM   #5

markdienekes's Avatar
Priest of Baʿal Hammon
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Oxford
Posts: 4,706
Blog Entries: 15

I'd certainly put him up there as one of the best. Philips position was certainly not stable at the start of his reign, his borders beset by many enemies, or following his defeat against Onomarchus, but he dealt with the problems superbly. His changes he made to the army were outstanding achievements, not simply the changes in weaponry and tactics but down to how it was organised, uniting Upper and Lower Macedonia, with the army used as the main method of acquiring power and wealth, turning it into a well drilled and disciplined force. I'd like to into more detail but I am on holiday without my books and typing on a phone!!!
markdienekes is online now  
Old June 28th, 2017, 09:47 AM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 3,889

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Reorganizing the base from which the army was recruited.

The restructuring of the drill and of the legion's internal structures vastly improved fighting quality and pretty much created a system for a standing army, as opposed to a seasonal one. As I understand it, after the Marian Reforms, the Army became a career, not an obligation as it had been earlier.

Marius also expanded the military base of the Roman Army by beginning the handing out of large scale Roman Citizenship to allied cities. That was as much a social revolution that would go on to change the character of European societal structures, as it was a military one
I recommend you read "The Crisis of Rome: The Jugurthine and Northern Wars and the Rise of Marius". Someone recommended it on here a while back and I definitely think its one of the better books on the subject.
aggienation is offline  
Old June 29th, 2017, 02:37 AM   #7

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,863

Napoleon became a loser - there are people out there who never lost - and Phillip was a bit of a nutter by all accounts.

We have Alexander the Great who conquered things almost incomparable before or since, given the restraints of the time. And yet the fashion is to say:

"Oh well Phillip was better, he set it all up, anybody could do what Alexander did".

If you think about it, it's just ridiculous revisionism.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old June 29th, 2017, 03:34 AM   #8

VorpalxBlade's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Australia
Posts: 233

Quote:
If the revolutionary reform of the military is at issue, I'd say Gaius Marius made a greater impact. His conquests may not have been extensive (but then again neither were Philip's) but the reforms he made created an army that built a substantial empire, and one which was far more stable than Alexander's.

Philip didn't create his army out of nothing though. He did have a standard Greek model which he altered. I'm not entirely sure how revolutionary his reworking of the cavalry was, since by all accounts his lands and Thessaly were more cavalry dominated than mainland Greece (plus given the long Persian influence on Macedon, there may have been an Asiatic rooting of the philosophy).

That's not to say the Sarissa army wasn't a huge leap forward in military organization and technology. Just that Marius IMO achieved as much, perhaps more. And he had to constantly deal with the bickering politics of Rome. As I understand it, Philip's position was a damn sight more stable.
Marius didn't create his army out of nothing either, so that point is somewhat moot. There's good evidence for Philip's reorganisation of the noble cavalry. He trained them in drills, forming proper lines and different formations, as well as arming them differently.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily call the period where Philip had perhaps bribed some of his enemies away but still had to deal with the Illyrians and other tribes militarily, and so retrained his army: a stable position, at all. In fact, it's postulated that a reason Philip equipped his men as pikemen was because he simply could not afford hoplite apparel. I like to believe that this was maybe one of many reasons. Anyway, he retrained his army whilst still faced with the Illyrians and Athenian pressure, amongst other things.

Quote:
I'd certainly put him up there as one of the best. Philips position was certainly not stable at the start of his reign, his borders beset by many enemies, or following his defeat against Onomarchus, but he dealt with the problems superbly. His changes he made to the army were outstanding achievements, not simply the changes in weaponry and tactics but down to how it was organised, uniting Upper and Lower Macedonia, with the army used as the main method of acquiring power and wealth, turning it into a well drilled and disciplined force. I'd like to into more detail but I am on holiday without my books and typing on a phone!!!
I'd go further and say that almost no king has inherited a kingdom in such danger or beset with such difficulties as Philip had. No money, pressure from 4-5 different enemies on his own borders, and the army had been defeated along with its king in a major battle.

Quote:
Napoleon became a loser - there are people out there who never lost - and Phillip was a bit of a nutter by all accounts.

We have Alexander the Great who conquered things almost incomparable before or since, given the restraints of the time. And yet the fashion is to say:

"Oh well Phillip was better, he set it all up, anybody could do what Alexander did".

If you think about it, it's just ridiculous revisionism.
Hmmm, Alexander would have become a loser if he lived long enough. Napoleon became a loser in my eyes because his advantage in military organisation and tactics was cut heavily since his enemies quickly copied his methods. Napoleon himself said "You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war - Emperor Napoleon I". This happened during the Diadochi period when Philip/Alexander style armies came up against each other, and a general had a way lower chance of gaining a victory, since the armies were so similar to each other.

Weren't most generals 'nutters' really? Also, Philip lost one or two battles at most. Quite an impressive record.

I agree. I never say anybody could do what Alexander did. I'm merely discussing the qualities of the two as military generals in all fields. At the moment the only aspect being discussed is organisation etc.

I think the Battle of Chaeoronea for Philip is on the same level of tactical and strategic brilliance as any of Alexander's major battles, such as Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela or Hydaspes. Philip's tactical withdrawal of his troops drew in the Greeks, and what increased their disorder further was the fact that the phalangites were echeloned and therefore made it awkward to pursue them, and only made the Greeks more out of battle order.

Last edited by VorpalxBlade; June 29th, 2017 at 03:37 AM.
VorpalxBlade is offline  
Old June 29th, 2017, 04:00 AM   #9

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,997
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by VorpalxBlade View Post
Marius didn't create his army out of nothing either, so that point is somewhat moot. There's good evidence for Philip's reorganisation of the noble cavalry. He trained them in drills, forming proper lines and different formations, as well as arming them differently.
My apologies. I framed that badly. I didn't mean to imply that Marius created the army out of nothing, more that Philip too was reorganizing an existing military system rather than creating a new one. This IMO is important to why I consider him a parallel to Marius (or more accurately vice-versa).
tornada is offline  
Old June 29th, 2017, 04:31 AM   #10

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,342

I always thought that Philip has been under rated. He was certainly a better commander and politician than his son. I'm not sure whether he was the best commander of all time but he was the best of his time by a long shot.

Philip was under a lot more stress than Marius and had way less resources to work with. He took the throne in 359 B.C. after the Macedonians had suffered a defeat by the Illyrians, which resulted in the death of his brother, the previous king. Macedon was facing extinction – the Illyrians were continuing to advance, the Thracians and Paionians had invaded the east, and the the Athenians had landed a force in the south. Philip had to react quickly: he married the great granddaughter of the Illyrian king to secure a truce, he held off the eastern threat with promises of tribute, and he marched a force south to deal with the Athenians. The Macedonians were victorious, giving Philip some breathing space to secure his throne and continue his brother's reforms.

Last edited by Dan Howard; June 29th, 2017 at 04:44 AM.
Dan Howard is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
captain or general, europe, macedon, philip, produced



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could Philip II of Macedon have conquered Persia? Chandos Ancient History 81 September 15th, 2017 03:00 AM
Philip V of Macedon markdienekes Ancient History 10 December 21st, 2016 11:25 PM
Philip II of Macedon biographies Canuck History Book Reviews 2 July 9th, 2012 01:23 PM
Who murdered Philip II of Macedon? Frank81 Ancient History 12 December 29th, 2011 07:30 PM
Philip II of Macedon at Methone Alcibiades Speculative History 19 December 1st, 2010 02:50 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.