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 December 26th, 2017, 11:53 PM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2015
From: villa of Lucullus
Posts: 215
Philip II vs Philip V


There have been some Philip threads recently. How does the Philip who preceded Alexander compares with the later Philip who fought the Romans?
LicinusYongzheng704 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 27th, 2017, 06:54 PM   #2

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 879
Blog Entries: 1

No real comparison really, Philip II is a more accomplished king, politician and general.

If Philip was king during the reign of Philip V, he would be mopping up the Romans.

Last edited by Duke Valentino; December 27th, 2017 at 06:58 PM.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 07:55 PM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
No real comparison really, Philip II is a more accomplished king, politician and general.

If Philip was king during the reign of Philip V, he would be mopping up the Romans.
LOL. Base on what evidence. Or just your personal biased opinion?
mariusj is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 07:57 PM   #4

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 879
Blog Entries: 1

The second line is my own opinion.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 01:35 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
The second line is my own opinion.
Well it's too bad because Greece became Roman provinces.
mariusj is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 01:36 AM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,561

And in my opinion the Romans would have crushed either Phillip.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 01:55 AM   #7

markdienekes's Avatar
Priest of Baʿal Hammon
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Oxford
Posts: 4,757
Blog Entries: 15

Philip V was a first class general, not one of the greats, but very underated. Philip II would have been defeated by the Romans at this time too. Philip V had problems all over his borders too, and campaigned extensively for most of his long military career with success.
markdienekes is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 03:21 AM   #8

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 879
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by markdienekes View Post
Philip V was a first class general, not one of the greats, but very underated. Philip II would have been defeated by the Romans at this time too. Philip V had problems all over his borders too, and campaigned extensively for most of his long military career with success.
He also made a tragic mistake at Cynoscephalae that Philip II never would have made in the same circumstances.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 04:20 AM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,661

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
And in my opinion the Romans would have crushed either Phillip.
Also my opinion. Macedonian power base and number of men was very small compared to Romans. One lost battle with serious casualties was enough for them to lose whole war. Their whole number of armed men was not even six numbers while Romans could field few times x 100.000.
macon is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 04:26 AM   #10

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 879
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
Also my opinion. Macedonian power base and number of men was very small compared to Romans. One lost battle with serious casualties was enough for them to lose whole war. Their whole number of armed men was not even six numbers while Romans could field few times x 100.000.
That's also very true. The Romans were capable of fielding a bigger percentage of manpower as opposed to the Hellenistic world. That's why I don't feel that Mithridates could field in excess of 100,000 men, nor could he concentrate such a horde [for the time period] and be able to keep it fed constantly.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
philip



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Philip V of Macedon markdienekes Ancient History 10 December 22nd, 2016 12:25 AM
Philip the Great? Lee-Sensei Speculative History 11 April 10th, 2016 04:58 PM
Philip Sheridan Viperlord American History 100 April 29th, 2013 12:01 PM
King Philip's War tjadams American History 67 August 25th, 2012 10:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.