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


View Poll Results: Who was the greater overall leader, Philip of Macedon or Sulla?
Philip II of Macedon 33 70.21%
Sulla 14 29.79%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:20 PM   #251
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,363

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
He earned a Hellenic education due to very specific circumstances that caused him to be used as a hostage. I'm referring to Caesarmagnus' belief that the education of the royal children of Macedon before the time of Philip was the same as when Alexander grew up, which is false and something he "failed" to reply to.

Not to mention that Sulla was described as well read and educated.
Either way, Philip was trained by some of the finest at his time, both in philosophy, rhetoric, military drilling, and history.

I don't recall reading Sulla been well read and educated at that age. I did read about the debauchery of his youth, especially when I was a very young man I read the semi-fiction Master of Rome series and I always find it amusing that this great and powerful man was, at one point, very much living a trashy life. Man had no shame.
mariusj is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:52 PM   #252
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Either way, Philip was trained by some of the finest at his time, both in philosophy, rhetoric, military drilling, and history.
This was not a reflection of standard royal Macedonian education, which is what Caesarmagnus implied. Philip was a special case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
I don't recall reading Sulla been well read and educated at that age. I did read about the debauchery of his youth, especially when I was a very young man I read the semi-fiction Master of Rome series and I always find it amusing that this great and powerful man was, at one point, very much living a trashy life. Man had no shame.
Sallust believed him to be well read and educated, along with knowing Greek, a symbol of status in ancient Rome.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:08 PM   #253
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,363

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
This was not a reflection of standard royal Macedonian education, which is what Caesarmagnus implied. Philip was a special case.
I can't speak for Caesarmagus, but from my understanding he was talking about Philip's birth which led to this education, and compare it with Sulla's birth, which allowed him to spend it in debauchery with actors and whores.
Quote:
Sallust believed him to be well read and educated, along with knowing Greek, a symbol of status in ancient Rome.
I mean, eventually, and not the same rate. Sulla was not trained by any rhetoricians which was almost basic for even regular back bencher of Roman politics [for example, even when someone like Caesar, who was only moderately well off, we were told was trained by the orators who trained Cicero, and Anthony, who amassed huge debts and lost both his father/step father, also receive training by orators], otherwise we read about it so I find it hard to say Sulla even receive a regular education [private tutors, though form what I hear, that's actually miserable.]
mariusj is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:11 PM   #254
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,129

Well I'm more than happy to concede if that's what Caesarmagnus meant, but it's all too easy to also say this is what he meant now that this discussion has occurred.

Then again he has demonstrated a lack of knowledge on Macedonian history, including believing that anyone who opposed the king or wrote against him was executed, as this was "how absolute monarchies work", yet we have many examples of the opposite, including Philip getting talked down to by an old peasant woman when he refused to hear her petition, saying he didn't have time. She told him to his face, "Then don't be king."
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 03:36 PM   #255
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,363

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
Well I'm more than happy to concede if that's what Caesarmagnus meant, but it's all too easy to also say this is what he meant now that this discussion has occurred.

Then again he has demonstrated a lack of knowledge on Macedonian history, including believing that anyone who opposed the king or wrote against him was executed, as this was "how absolute monarchies work", yet we have many examples of the opposite, including Philip getting talked down to by an old peasant woman when he refused to hear her petition, saying he didn't have time. She told him to his face, "Then don't be king."
Sorry, we went over 2 pages of this idea of can any SON of the King be king, and the answer was still debatable. I disagree with Sal's opinion because other authors seem to have indicate a few issues that they conclude that Macedonian kings don't follow a strict inheritance plan. Since the authors I read were published scholar, and I don't know who Sal is, I am going with people who are published scholars. I won't be definitive on that all SONS can be king, but it seems to me that it would be equally wrong to say that Macedonians have crown prince from their birth.

Macedonian kingship is not a absolute monarchy. That is something I am rather certain of. They are monarchs and traditional despots, but not absolute monarchy the way we think of it. But if we think of it not as a European French absolute monarchy, what exactly were powers that can stop a Macedonian King? Are there priests who can say, no, you are wrong? Can his captains tell him no and override him? So in some aspect, I do think they are like most traditional despot, ruled without interference.
mariusj is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 04:19 PM   #256

Salaminia's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 509

Macedonian kings were not absolutist monarchs. They ruled with the concord of their "barons". Perdikkas (son of Orontes) was of the royal house of Orestis for example and may also have been of Argead stock (Curt, 10.7.8). A king who lost the support of these nobles would not last terribly long. What stands out in Alexander's reign is his increasing tendency to autocracy. Indeed, the sources mark this "decline" and his nobles are shown resenting it. That court was different to Philip's court.

On succession, the source information we have would, on balance, favour the succession of the oldest son, all things being equal. Philip's brothers succeeded in said fashion and he was shown to be overjoyed at the birth of his first 'legitimate' son Alexander (Arrhidaios clearly was afflicted in some fashion). Indeed, it is remarked upon when such does not occur (Keranos being overlooked by Ptolemy Soter for example).
Salaminia is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 04:50 PM   #257
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,363

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
Macedonian kings were not absolutist monarchs. They ruled with the concord of their "barons". Perdikkas (son of Orontes) was of the royal house of Orestis for example and may also have been of Argead stock (Curt, 10.7.8). A king who lost the support of these nobles would not last terribly long. What stands out in Alexander's reign is his increasing tendency to autocracy. Indeed, the sources mark this "decline" and his nobles are shown resenting it. That court was different to Philip's court.

On succession, the source information we have would, on balance, favour the succession of the oldest son, all things being equal. Philip's brothers succeeded in said fashion and he was shown to be overjoyed at the birth of his first 'legitimate' son Alexander (Arrhidaios clearly was afflicted in some fashion). Indeed, it is remarked upon when such does not occur (Keranos being overlooked by Ptolemy Soter for example).
Again, the question is not WILL younger sons be king, but CAN younger sons be king, as were ALL of our debate was based on.

Not necessary that younger sons were favored, or that more likely to be chosen, but CAN they be king.

Duke's argument was that PHILIP WAS NOT BORN to be king, well sorry but unless they have a succession rule, that's simply not the case. He probably won't be king as his brothers are far older, but the station he was born to allow him to be king, that there was a workable path for which one can perceive to say, ah Philip? He could be king.
mariusj is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 04:56 PM   #258
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Australia
Posts: 1,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Sorry, we went over 2 pages of this idea of can any SON of the King be king, and the answer was still debatable. I disagree with Sal's opinion because other authors seem to have indicate a few issues that they conclude that Macedonian kings don't follow a strict inheritance plan. Since the authors I read were published scholar, and I don't know who Sal is, I am going with people who are published scholars. I won't be definitive on that all SONS can be king, but it seems to me that it would be equally wrong to say that Macedonians have crown prince from their birth.
I shall add onto what Salaminia said.

Hammond and Griffith have recognised Macedonia as a state/kingdom in which "there was simply no government apart from the king" (N.G. L. Hammond, and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2 [Oxford: 1979], Hammond and Griffith, 384 [see also 152]). The Argead family were inexorably linked to the monarchy, the successors of Alexander vying for the throne of Macedon attempted to legitimise themselves by associating themselves with the family. The family's monopoly on power came from their supposed divine descent from Heracles.

Polygamy was a more usual than unusual practice for the family, resulting in many claimants. This may have been due to ancient mortality rates and the fact that the Macedonian kings and their sons/relatives would frequently be required to lead expeditions and fight in order to expand/defend Macedon. With the kings being expected to participate in hand to hand combat, the use of polygamy to ensure the line divine line of Heracles is secured does not seem too unusual. Heirs it seems were usually picked based on their competence, where they were chosen by the Macedonian Assembly, or "supported", since the assembly did not technically have official power.

Errington characterised the Macedonian monarchy as "the total supremacy of the king in all recorded aspects of public life." (Errington, “Macedonian ‘Royal Style’ and its Historical Significance,” JHS 94 [1974]: 37.) Hammond has called the Macedonian kingdom a constitutional monarchy due to the kings adherence to traditional law (Hammond, Macedonian State, 57.), with Griffith describing it as a state where the king had "wide but not absolute rights" (Hammond and Griffith, History of Macedonia, 158, where Griffith refers to Thuc. 1.13.1 and Arr. An. 4.11.6 to substantiate his arguments. See also 386.). One could go on indefinitely about this, and write a substantial essay on the subject. The point is, the king had almost absolute authority in most cases. He certainly held supreme command over the "army". It is worthwhile to note that the king did not act regal, they instead spent most of their lives living as their companions did, and remained in close contact with their people.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:30 PM   #259
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,665

Ok, let's do this slowly so you have no wiggle room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
[FONT="Arial"]


Yes, historians do judge historical figures on deeds and merit. They also add references to the individual on top of that to solidify their reputation and how they were viewed in the context of their time, and even in later times, which is extremely handy.

Now, please do not straw man me. You've got here:
It's not a straw man at all. You're invoking Machiavelli to make an inference Machiavelli in no way makes. It was a ridiculous point to push, not least of all because Machiavelli is writing a book of politics, not military taxonomy. The person straw manning here is actually you, because nobody here is taking the "Phillip sucks" position, which is the only thing Machiavelli's comment is relevant to ascertaining. Please, stop with even mentioning him. It's a complete distraction from the real issues. It's not "fuel to the fire", no more than other hyperbolic comments are. There are countless commanders who were "the greatest" or "the best" if we use such hyperbolic comments (and Machiavelli doesn't even say that!). The only point in mentioning them would be if everyone thought Phillip sucked. Nobody here has claimed that at all, so it's moot to mention (from Machiavelli or other sources). Stick to what they actually did/proved as actual generals/leaders, and assess that against the context they faced.

Quote:
Fine, I will concede this point
Good.

Quote:
Sorry, gonna repost because you're not responding to my argument:

...So yeah, show me that historians are flawed for interpeting the sources in order to make sense out of contradictions and irregularities, and why this is fan fiction, and why people here [as opposed to solely you] should take ancient sources at almost face value, and disregard modern scholarship.

Also, how am I disregarding the events? Follow the accounts yourself. In that theater Lucullus has a total command of 7 legions, two of these he sents to other places, leaving him with 5 legions. So far, I don't see how I'm disregarding the sources. There is no mention of Lucullus delegating any more of these legions elswhere. He delegates 2 of 7, leaving 5. We also know from his letter to the senate that he was forced to recruit locally in order to deal with Tigranes. This includes locally recruiting legions. A desperate attempt considering he had to justify to the senate why he was doing that.
1) Back to this tired point? For the hundredth time, nobody is saying ancient sources must always be interpreted 100% literally, and they never exaggerate. I have some instances where I think they definitely exaggerate. The irrational position is the one you/Delbruck seem to take, which is that they basically always exaggerate if the army is bigger than your pre-determined ideological position. I went through the reasons in depth for why armies of size XYZ can and did exist and you've basically conceded the principle of it, because we know the Romans had armies that big, you just oppose in this case and that case, etc. The evidence and arguments were presented, the sources are quite consistent (including the ones you originally invoked as being "more reliable" and we've moved on.
2) Usually when modern writers dispute Lucullus feats they suspect exaggeration on the part of the Armenian army, not on Lucullus side. You once again demonstrate your total lack of knowledge about this period of Roman history, beyond the most superficial. Of course modern writers don't think Lucullus had all the Eastern legions with him at this point. Want to know why? Because while his army was mutinying other Roman forces were ambushed and killed by Mithridates! Jesus. Sornatius was left in Pontus with 6000 foot. Triarius had more, and lost 7000 of them in battle while Lucullus was dealing with the mutiny. Fabius lost a battle too, with how many men we don't know. Cotta himself also had his own armies. More importantly though is that the sources are not vague. This isn't a case where we need to infer how many men Lucullus had with him based on; a) how many legions he had, and b) how many he had deployed elsewhere. The sources explicitly tell us "he had X many men with him", and none of those sources support your fanfiction. You are coming off as ridiculous, replacing the sources with your own imagination. Lucullus is described by both Appian and Plutarch as having a force of 30,000 foot in total for the war (cavalry size varies slightly), including the Fimbrian forces, etc. Clearly he didn't have all of that with him in Armenia, for the reasons given, and you know because the sources explicitly tell us he did not.

Quote:
As for the 8 legions against 45 - were these 45 legions concentrated and ready to fight Sulla? Was there a battle where Sulla defeated them all of them at once? Or were they divided into seperate commands in different parts of Italy? Painting the picture in different ways makes a difference. Sulla and Philip did the same thing: divide and conquer. Except Philip did this at a larger scale, fighting Athens in proxy wars against its various allies.

Let it be noted that the phrase "divide and rule" has been attributed to come from Philip himself. He is the literal definition of that.
1) Obviously Sulla didn't face all 45 at once.
2) But we do know he faced 90,000+ in one battle, and he couldn't have had more than half that number.
3) Phillip never had to "divide and rule" a force of the ilk of 45 Roman legions (plus however many cavalry they had). There was never really any coalition of any kind against Phillip, never mind one that had that kind of numerical advantage. Nor was there any real prospect of such a coalition against Phillip, the Greek states tended to be disunited and fight each other all the time. The narrative you're pushing, that Phillip needed to be a Machiavellian genius to break up the super coalitions waiting to crush him, is utterly false. The Greek states didn't even think of teaming up seriously to fight Phillip until it was far too late, and were besides exhausted from recent wars. The 45+ legions Sulla faced were already united against him from the outset, it wasn't a theoretical coalition army; it actually existed, and had to be defeated.

Quote:
Yes I have, in fact in this thread and the last I've provided multiple sources discussing the intricacies of Philip's reforms during the first year of his reign. You've continued to argue the point that Diodorus' discussion of reforms were not discursive, which not supported by many, if not all, scholarship on the subject. The burden of proof is upon you to provide the relevant research/papers/books and authority to back up that Diodorus' discussion was not discursive apart from "well I decided to take it literally."
People generally take things literally when they read them in sources, especially when what we're taking literally is a text that basically reads "this happened, and then Phillip armed and trained his men in response". There's no obvious reason to not give that a prima facie reading, especially when the "scholarship" that disagrees with me is just two internet forum posters. If you want to argue for a non-literal reading of a text it's you who should be providing scholarship to support you, not the other way around (hint, saying "Sal agrees" is not scholarship).

Quote:
Spartan JKM has already smashed you on this point so
Good one.

Quote:
So he achieved officer eligibility by .... inheriting wealth? Hard life.
The point is you were dishonest to refer to him as coming from an officer class family, when that's just not true. He was not from such a family, he had no training as an officer, he had none of the benefits that are implied in such an upbringing. Whether he lucked into wealth or helped his patrons into an early grave, the fact remains your claim was just not accurate.

Quote:
The Italians had a total 100,000 soldiers, divided among the numerous tribes/generals. Rome was able to match these numbers anyway.

Sulla was not responsible for the victory of the consul Strabo, who was in sole command, where he defeated an army of Italians and forced Asculum to surrender and received a triumph for it. Sulla was responsible for defeating a Samnite army at Nola, an army that fled as soon as one of their champions was killed. Not a display of generalship, but rather just taking advantage of a situation like anyone else would. We'll get into why Sulla is not solely responsible for the victory of the Romans below, where we find L. Caesar and Marius, along with legislation that all helped reverse the tides of the war during the end of the first year. Sulla's involvement was significant and might I say highly impressive, but he is not the sole victor.
And now you're venturing back into "flat out false on the sources" territory. 1) Strabo, who was far removed from the real fighting with the mainline Italian states, did indeed win a victory (eventually, after losing and being besieged). He killed 5000 men in it. Sulla probably killed 5 times that many outside Nola. Strabo was in sole command of the least important theatre of the war, in Picenum. Sulla was defeating the frontline armies of the Italian states. Mentioning Strabo's battle and Sulla's in the same breathe is a joke.
2) Forget apocryphal stories about why the Italian army at Nola broke, those are the gossipy canards which we can take well salted, along with anecdotes like Caesar's dreams. There's no way anyone could have witnessed that in the middle of the chaos of the battle and been sure it led to the line breaking. The same army that had pushed Sulla back before he was reinforced by his foragers were not pushovers, and Sulla was awarded the Grass Crown for his generalship at this battle. I'm going to assume it was far from easy (especially given how Roman armies had been getting beaten left and right prior to this point).
3) Sulla then invades and subdues another Italian State, and invades and subdues Samnium, crushing the army of the Supreme commander of the Italian forces. Marius only won a single battle in the war, and he only killed 6000 men in this victory (in which Sulla collaborated). That certainly wasn't the turning point.
4) Your newest attempt to rewrite the history of the Social War is the most amusing. Realising that you blundered in calling the insignificant battle of Asculum "the turning point", you've now tried to claim it was the legislation for citizenship that was "the turning point". That is of course ridiculous, because it only applied to those who had not taken up arms against Rome, and none of the armies in the field surrendered to apply for amnesty; they fought to the bitter end. It was a good policy for the future, but it had no impact on the course of present day events (or minimal impact). What had an impact was Sulla killing over a quarter of the Italian field army in one battle, then subduing 2 of the Italian states while crushing the army of their Supreme commander, which then led to Cosconius, who had been getting hampered badly by the Samnites, winning more important victories. Since I know you're not familiar with who he is, he was a minor general under Sulla in the Southern theatre who killed 15,000 Italian in one battle after Sulla had routed these larger armies. It was Sulla who turned the war, after his victories the Romans were winning left and right over the demoralized and weakened Italians.

Quote:
Except Strabo recieved a triumph for his victory on the northern front
Lots of generals got triumphs for victories. It is not an argument in your favour, it is not a proof of anything you have asserted.

Quote:
I concede that the victory in the north under Strabo was not the turning point. That along with the introduced legislation basically turned the war, with Sulla contributing by aiding in reversing the fortunes of the war and keeping the Samnites under control.
No, it was neither of these things, either individually or in concert.

Quote:
This is clearly not a Sulla-only victory.
Nobody said Sulla did it all on his own, but he was the driving force and the turning point in the war. Prior to that Rome was doing horribly, and the other actors you named are either bit players in the war, or net negatives. Sextus Caesar almost surely lost more men than he killed, he was not a productive force in the war. Other generals exclusively lost battles, including multiple consular armies. It was grim times before Sulla.

Quote:
Philip simply has a few more feats as opposed to Sulla in terms of methods of conducting siege warfare. It's not that big anyway, but we can be certain that Philip was just as good at the least as Sulla when it came to siege operations.
How can we be sure of this? There's no evidence for that point at all that I can see.

Quote:
Philip faced a proxy war against Athens for most of his reign, on the grand strategic scale his was heavily outnumbered and out-financed.
Utter nonsense. The Greeks had exhausted themselves recently in internal squabbles, and there was never a real coalition against Phillip (not one that mattered). Athens was no more in a proxy war with him than Athens was in proxy wars with most of Greece; if they had the chance to hurt him to their benefit they would, but that's the attitude of most Greek states to each other at this point in time. He was not outnumbered in any actual sense, because coalition armies never materialized. Sulla faced actual grand armies, not imaginary ones that could, if circumstances had been different, possibly materialized. We have no idea what the financial state of the Greek states was at this point. It might have been good, it might have been bad. Your claim is a bald assertion basically.

Quote:
First off, Sulla was facing a Rome that was also still fighting the Samnites, so there were technically three parties during the war, which complicates things.
Everyone had patched things up and joined the "anti-Sulla" campaign. There is no indication of dissention whatever among the anti-Sulla coalition, and in the battle of the Colline Gate the army consisted of both Italian and Roman forces in the 90,000+ army. Maybe they would have fought each other again after they took care of Sulla, but that's moot.

Quote:
Secondly, Sulla didn't face a lot of opposition, as you would have people believe. Sulla arrived in Italy from Greece with 40,000 troops.
He arrived from Greece with about 40,000 soldiers, but only 25,000 of them were actually Roman foot (the best kind of soldiers). The other side had 225,000, plus a bunch of the "other" kind of soldiers too. Well, actually if you do the numbers they had even more than 225,000, depending on how many men they were able to reintegrate into their remaining forces after each defeat. Sulla faced plenty of opposition, he just kept defeating it.

Quote:
and

As you can see, many of Sulla's enemies simply deserted and even joined Sulla according to Appian. He fights two battles before entering Rome, both of which are shrouded in mystery in terms of enemy composition and numbers. An entire army also joined Sulla. The Italians were in the vast majority in support of Sulla.
It's to Sulla's credit that he's able to induce enemies to desert to his side, though some of this surrendering was after they'd had a taste of how good Sulla's army and generalship was. The Italians may have been supporters of Sulla in a theoretical sense, but the armies that came to his side were relatively small in the scheme of things (given the sheer numbers flying around). He still had to win battles too, including and most importantly at the Colline Gate.

Quote:
Sulla faced odds, but not as the way you present them, by any means.
The way I present them is far more accurate than the way you present Phillip's odds. Sulla had to divide and rule, win over, and defeat in battles, actual armies arrayed against him by a unified side; not imaginary ones that never existed.

As for the Sulla political stuff, I'll make another post, but it's also pretty crazy tbh.
Caesarmagnus is online now  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:35 PM   #260
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,665

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
I'm curious about my response to this point,

Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus
Sulla's inheritances came to him at age 30, possibly after he killed the two women who left it to him (or so the rumours went). He had nothing prior to that, and lived among the lowest classes. He may have taught himself Greek and educated himself, but it doesn't seem like any of that was provided for him since he had no money. Certainly he didn't have the educational luxuries of being born to the Macedonian Royal family. Sulla was not in the military prior to age 30, and would not have qualified to enlist, so for you to describe him as an officer class citizen was totally inaccurate. We have no knowledge of how he'd have received military training at all prior to age 30.
to which my response was:
Again you've proven that that you do not have any sort of grasp on Macedonian life. Before what Philip did, Macedonia didn't have a page system, it didn't attempt to be Greek, it was extremely poor, not having access to any of the mines that it should have owned. The way of life for even the princes was tough, they were expected to be above the common man in terms of bravery, toughness and courage. Being a prince/king meant having the authority to be one. The only time Macedonians were permitted hot water for bathing was after a woman had given birth. They were a hard people, Philip's early life certainly wasn't very educational like Alexander's. So you're just plain wrong. Your taking the image of Macedon during Alexander's childhood and fixing it on Philip's childhood. You've got no knowledge of the time and you should really stop.
Do you concede this point, or do you still contend that Philip was born into the "educational luxuries" of the Macedonian royal family ?
1) Phillip was raised in part as an honoured hostage, and given a top notch military and educational training Sulla never got as a youth
2) He was still a royal, and had the associated benefits that come with that (legitimacy, supporters, clients, wealth, a relatively straightforward path to the throne, etc). You need to stop embarrassing yourself with this "Macedonian princes had it tough, they bathed in cold water and were sent off to fight wolves as children" stuff. It's right up there with the whole "Phillip's army was nothing more than Sheppard's with kitchen utensils" argument (that you now claim wasn't meant literally). I hope this argument also isn't meant literally, because as a prince Phillip had a tonne of natural advantages I've already alluded to. To compare him to Sulla, who had none of those advantages and was living in the lowest stratum of Roman society, is ridiculous.
Caesarmagnus is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
greater, leader, philip, sulla



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marius vs Sulla DIVUS IVLIVS Ancient History 50 January 12th, 2018 06:56 PM
Best political leader/military leader partnership in history Don Cartagena War and Military History 27 April 17th, 2016 07:16 PM
Sulla or Marius SVLLA Ancient History 23 December 30th, 2012 12:05 PM
Marius vs. Sulla Salah Speculative History 29 December 21st, 2012 11:16 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.