Alexander or Philip the Great? - Page 4 - Historum

**Mandate of Heaven** · November 3rd, 2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guaporense

Ridiculous. Mecedonia became the first state to hold the entire Greek mainland area under it's control. It was a huge area with a huge population and a huge ammount of wealth.

Ludicrous. The entire Greek mainland area was no much bigger than the size of my island country from a global perspective considering the entire European continent, African continent, and Asian continent. The wealth was also not that great. It's like a homeless man bragging about his cardboard box to Bill Gates.

Quote:

For effect of comparison, Macedonia was able to muster a professional field army of 50,000 men for the invasion of the Persian Empire. At the standard daily wage of 1.5 dracma per day that would ammount to 4,500 talents per year, only for the wages of the field army, counting the costs of supply and equipment (armor and weapons for all 50,000 men would cost another 4,000 talents) it would be the most expensive field army ever fielded. For comparison the budget of the entire Persian Empire ran at 12,000 talents.

So? China at the same time could muster at least 10 times that amount. Nice cardboard box man. And you are very wrong. A monthly wage would be about a tetra drachma.

Quote:

In pure monetary terms the army of Alexander was more expensive than any other army he faced. Persian armies were larger in terms of numbers, but smaller in terms of economic cost (hence, mobs of poorly trained and poorly equiped soldiers).

Dead wrong. What costs most is the food and transportation cost of the said food for the soldiers. Persian troops cost way more. Not to mention they had elephants. Heard of the expression "white elephant"?

Quote:

Regional powers were Corinth and Syracuse. Or Macedon BEFORE Phillip II.

Bad joke. They were not even real countries. Jump out of the well, dude.

Quote:

The simple fact is that Philip was already planning to invade and defeat the Persian Empire in war and that the Greeks had already defeated the Persians before. In other words, the strategic planners in Macedon already understood that they were capable of crushing the Persians before Alexander.

Sure, last week I was planning to invade and defeat the US. So I must already understood that I am capable of crushing the US? You are not as funny as you think.

Quote:

The main difference between Phillip and Alexander was that Phillip was actually a more mature political leader and understood the realities of ancient geopolitics. He understood that there was no point of conquering his way up to India.

No. the difference between Philip and Alexander is that Alexander conquered Asia whereas Philip didn't.

Quote:

Phillip increased the size of Macedonia from a territory of less than 30,000 square kilometers and a population of around 2/3 of a million to a territory of well over 150,000 sq2 kilometers and a population of at least 4 million (just the blue areas ocupied by Greek city states had over 3 million inhabitants):

10 years later:

another 10 years:

Oh that's gigantic. Especially in light of this map:

Where is the Greece mainland you were talking about? I can not see it!

Quote:

By the time of Phillip's death the defeat and conquest of Persian territories were a natural consequence of the process of Macedonian imperialism, as the Macedonian empire was expanding at a geometric rate. After defeating hundreds of other political units in the Greek peninsula Phillip II was ready to invade and crush the Persians.

Geometric rate? Then what would you call Alexander's conquest speed? 100 times geometric rate?

Quote:

When a person speaks of eurocentrism, a person speaks BS. Just search for books with "eurocentrism" written in it in Amazon and you will always find BS.

Hey, you just spoke the word Eurocentrism. You must be speaking BS!

Quote:

When one does not recognize certain historical truths such as the fact that Macedonia became a superpower under Phillip because Macedonia was European one is speaking with a anti-european bias.

Easy. When you have no fact whatsoever to back it up.

Quote:

Or do you think that the size of a country in terms of territory determines it's power? UK in the early 19th century was the world's greatest power and had 1% of the territory of the Russian Empire.

Dead wrong. UK in 19th century had Australia, Canada, India, and many other large territories. They add up to be 1% of Russia? Now, this is complete BS.

Quote:

There were hundreds of cities compressed in a very small area.

So it's a slum?

Quote:

Greece imported agricultural products and exported manufactured goods all over the mediterranean. It was in a similar position to the rest of the ancient world as to Europe to the rest of the world in the 19th century. No wonder that the Greeks under Alexander conquered and colonized the rest of the ancient classical world.

The Greek word that I most often read on news paper, unfortunately, is pedophilia.

Quote:

And it is YOU that need to read the ancient accounts. Polybius, for example, compares the power of Sparta after the Peloponnesian war with the Persian Empire, since Sparta became the hegemon of all of mainland Greece for a brief period.

No, it is YOU who should get into your head that Polybius has never been to the Persian Empire and no doubt knew less than it than even the likes of you.

Quote:

Had Phillip II not died he would have crushed the Persians like Alexander did. And instead of conquering vast ammounts of useless wasteland beyond mesopotamia he would have conquered only the civilized parts of the Persian Empire. Hence, making a more stable and eventually more powerful empire than Alexander's.

Wrong. had Philip not died, he would be utterly defeated by Darius and brought back to Babylon for a Persian Triumph.

Quote:

Alexander's conquests up to India were also the product of a juvenile wish to reach the end of the world, not the outcome of cold geopolitical considerations. The Roman Empire was much more capable of conquering their way up to India than Macedon, but the Romans never went beyong Mesopotamia, why? Because there was nothing worth conquering there!

Wrong. Romans couldn't even handle the Steppe people like the Huns. Which Alexander did remarkably better. Heck, Romans couldn't even handle the Goths, which were pushed around by the Huns like babies. Roman Empire? I have more respect for RAMEN Empire.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

EpicHistory360 · November 3rd, 2011, 05:59 PM

While that's true, judging them not as by what they did, I would say Alexander. Conquering so much land at that young an age and becoming that much of a force? I think of Philip as a great, brute warrior, and Alexander as a dashing young man who fought mercilessly and was truly 'the Great.' Just me, though.

EpicHistory360 · November 3rd, 2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

Ludicrous. The entire Greek mainland area was no much bigger than the size of my island country from a global perspective considering the entire European continent, African continent, and Asian continent. The wealth was also not that great. It's like a homeless man bragging about his cardboard box to Bill Gates.

So? China at the same time could muster at least 10 times that amount. Nice cardboard box man. And you are very wrong. A monthly wage would be about a tetra drachma.

Dead wrong. What costs most is the food and transportation cost of the said food for the soldiers. Persian troops cost way more. Not to mention they had elephants. Heard of the expression "white elephant"?

Bad joke. They were not even real countries. Jump out of the well, dude.

Sure, last week I was planning to invade and defeat the US. So I must already understood that I am capable of crushing the US? You are not as funny as you think.

No. the difference between Philip and Alexander is that Alexander conquered Asia whereas Philip didn't.

Oh that's gigantic. Especially in light of this map:

Where is the Greece mainland you were talking about? I can not see it!

Geometric rate? Then what would you call Alexander's conquest speed? 100 times geometric rate?

Hey, you just spoke the word Eurocentrism. You must be speaking BS!

Easy. When you have no fact whatsoever to back it up.

Dead wrong. UK in 19th century had Australia, Canada, India, and many other large territories. They add up to be 1% of Russia? Now, this is complete BS.

So it's a slum?

The Greek word that I most often read on news paper, unfortunately, is pedophilia.

No, it is YOU who should get into your head that Polybius has never been to the Persian Empire and no doubt knew less than it than even the likes of you.

Wrong. had Philip not died, he would be utterly defeated by Darius and brought back to Babylon for a Persian Triumph.

Wrong. Romans couldn't even handle the Steppe people like the Huns. Which Alexander did remarkably better. Heck, Romans couldn't even handle the Goths, which were pushed around by the Huns like babies. Roman Empire? I have more respect for RAMEN Empire.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Damn, you, sir, are impressive. You have my wholehearted respect. Blessings be upon you.

LOL

**Labienus** · November 3rd, 2011, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

Wrong. Romans couldn't even handle the Steppe people like the Huns. Which Alexander did remarkably better. Heck, Romans couldn't even handle the Goths, which were pushed around by the Huns like babies. Roman Empire? I have more respect for RAMEN Empire.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

To be fair to the Romans, the Western half of the empire had very much collapsed in all but name by the time of the Hunnic invasion of Attila. As for the Goths, I recommend you read some Guy Halsall. He explains very well how the Goths worked through the system as foederati and how the Battle of Adrianople was not that significant.

sylla1 · November 3rd, 2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

Domitian is generally considered a bad emperor. There were even rumors that he poisoned Titus.

Rumors are not History, and these ones were not even particularly serious.

TF Domitianus was unsurprisingly considered as a "bad emperor" (irrespectively on what that may exactly intend to men) mostly by his opponets; he was teh end of a dynasty and a notorious victim of damnatio memoraie. In practice, the factual account of his reign gives an entirely different and much more positive assessment; he was in fact a notably reformer and active emperor.

sylla1 · November 3rd, 2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

Sure, last week I was planning to invade and defeat the US. So I must already understood that I am capable of crushing the US? You are not as funny as you think.

No, that is just a fallacious red herring.
Unless of course you have already unified your "kingdom" and prepared your army, and of course still only if your kingdom (either under you or your offspring) is eventually able toconquer the US.
Otherwise, it would still be just a weird Freudian projection.

sylla1 · November 3rd, 2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

No. the difference between Philip and Alexander is that Alexander conquered Asia whereas Philip didn't.

False. The conquest of the Achemenid Empire was not performed bare-handedly by any monarch a la Homeric way.
The mere idea would be ludicrous.
That Empire was conquered by the whole nation of Makedonia.
The invasion was begun by Philippos II and it was culminated by Alexandros III; period.

sylla1 · November 3rd, 2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

Wrong. had Philip not died, he would be utterly defeated by Darius and brought back to Babylon for a Persian Triumph.

That is ludicrous BS, entirely fantastic speculation without any single piece of evidence to back it.

sylla1 · November 3rd, 2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

The Greek word that I most often read on news paper, unfortunately, is pedophilia.

Unfortunately for some of us, aside from being an obvious red herring, such wierd entirely uncalled observation seems to be just a deliberate ethnic insult, unless you may explain why may it be even remotely relevant to the OP.

sylla1 · November 3rd, 2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandate of Heaven

Wrong. Romans couldn't even handle the Steppe people like the Huns. Which Alexander did remarkably better. Heck, Romans couldn't even handle the Goths, which were pushed around by the Huns like babies. Roman Empire? I have more respect for RAMEN Empire

You must be kidding; period.
(And I'm not talking about the poor attempt of dubious irony)

At the risk of overstating the obvious, not each & any Asian nomad chieftain all along History has been a Genghis Khan or an Attila, you know.

You are simply trying to compare apples with oranges; that is just ludicrous.

In fact, very little is known of the Nomads defeated by Alexandros III; essentially just that they disn't invade anything. Au contraire, they were just collateral victims of the Makedonian expansionism.

Pretending that such nomads from around modern Uzbekistan could have been equivalent to the Huns from European Russian steppes of the V century BC (yup, eight centuries later) just for being both nomads couldn't be any more preposterous and ludicrous.

Just as preposterous and ludicrous as pretending that all sedentary warriors of all ages and locations were equivalent.