King Phillip II of Macedon Underappreciated in the shadow of Alexander the Great

Jun 2019
39
USA
ninja7samurai You should educate yourself on Alexander. You clearly don't know much about the subject. Read works of Hammond, Bosworth, Heckel, Fuller, Shachermayer, Green and ancient sources ( Arrian, Cutrius Rufus, Diodorus, Plutarch), before making such ridiculous statements.
Nice appeal to authority you got here. Without any examples, one could even say I know everything there is to know about Alexander.

Go home and google “how to make an argument” before making such ridiculous statements again.

This comment is so bizarre and over-the-top that I honestly don't even know how to respond to it. May I ask what sources you're using to base these opinions on?
Unlike your opening comment, I did not confuse opinions for facts. So in a logic sense, your statements are even more bizarre.

Truth be told, I merely gave my opinion – that Alexander is a historical outlier- and supported it with argument. All my claims, I would argue, are closely supported by facts. Some of which (like Alexander’s youth, risk-taking, temper-tantrums, and close affiliation to his mother) I would also argue are common knowledge. So unless you have some counter examples to show, I see no reason to divulge into the source material. Return to me when you’re ready to have an unfiltered view of who Alexander really is.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
1,324
Georgia
Nice appeal to authority you got here. Without any examples, one could even say I know everything there is to know about Alexander.

Go home and google “how to make an argument” before making such ridiculous statements again.
Listen kid, you better stop being so arrogant. It is laughable that you've never read any of the ancient sources or modern scholars, but still try to prove here something.
Truth be told, I merely gave my opinion – that Alexander is a historical outlier- and supported it with argument. All my claims, I would argue, are closely supported by facts. Some of which (like Alexander’s youth, risk-taking, temper-tantrums, and close affiliation to his mother) I would also argue are common knowledge. So unless you have some counter examples to show, I see no reason to divulge into the source material. Return to me when you’re ready to have an unfiltered view of who Alexander really is.
You don't have an unfiltered view of Alexander ( it is laughable that you think so ) and your claims are not closely supported by the facts. You didn't make any good arguments, because you lack knowledge on Alexander or Philip and it shows.

You also never gave us the sources that you are using to base these opinions on. That was the question of WhatAnArtist.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: macon
Jun 2019
39
USA
You don't have an unfiltered view of Alexander ( it is laughable that you think so ) and your claims are not closely supported by the facts. You didn't make any good arguments, because you lack knowledge on Alexander or Philip and it shows.

You also never gave us the sources that you are using to base these opinions on. That was the question of WhatAnArtist.
I made it clear in my follow on post that my arguments are supported by common knowledge. Facts like Alexander’s youth, drinking, deification, and mayhem, -to include the savage destruction of Tyre, Thebes, and Persepolis-, -along with his obsessions with personal glory, violence, and conquest are supported by a multitude of sources. The fact that Alexander was badly wounded in several battles is also well known, as well as his risk taking and impatience at any one of his major battles. His empire was even disintegrated after his death, and his genius -to include repeated destruction of million men armies and nation building- are either fabricated lies or products of outcome bias. The problem is total war noobs like yourself (and Emperor-God king wannabes), have a groupthink interpretation of anything to do with Alexander. In Freudian psychology, we might call this as compensating for small packages, but in academia we just call it hero worship.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s your very own, WhatAnAristst, wondering if the echo-chamber scholars and West Point posers had it wrong on Alexander:
I recently finished The Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian, and while it was certainly an interesting read, it almost entirely focused on the military aspects of Alexander's life (with some lengthy detours discussing the issue of his self-proclaimed divinity), which obviously was Arrian's intention, and in that he succeeded very well. Still, I'm interested in knowing more about Alexander as a man and as a ruler. He seemed to be charismatic and intelligent, but also extremely volatile and dangerously glory-hungry. These not-so positive aspects are what intrigue me though. So are there any books that delve into greater detail about the man himself, and not just his military successes (though they were impressive)?
And for good measure, here’s boy wonder as Kosmokrator, “ruler of the universe.”
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5a/64/cd/5a64cdbd55d05b434a1972a258e61e5c.jpg

Come back to me kid, after you’ve talked to daddy about being beaten at the playground.
 
Feb 2019
525
Thrace
I made it clear in my follow on post that my arguments are supported by common knowledge. Facts like Alexander’s youth, drinking, deification, and mayhem, -to include the savage destruction of Tyre, Thebes, and Persepolis-, -along with his obsessions with personal glory, violence, and conquest are supported by a multitude of sources. The fact that Alexander was badly wounded in several battles is also well known, as well as his risk taking and impatience at any one of his major battles. His empire was even disintegrated after his death, and his genius -to include repeated destruction of million men armies and nation building- are either fabricated lies or products of outcome bias. The problem is total war noobs like yourself (and Emperor-God king wannabes), have a groupthink interpretation of anything to do with Alexander. In Freudian psychology, we might call this as compensating for small packages, but in academia we just call it hero worship.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s your very own, WhatAnAristst, wondering if the echo-chamber scholars and West Point posers had it wrong on Alexander:


And for good measure, here’s boy wonder as Kosmokrator, “ruler of the universe.”
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5a/64/cd/5a64cdbd55d05b434a1972a258e61e5c.jpg

Come back to me kid, after you’ve talked to daddy about being beaten at the playground.
To be fair, Arrian did express his opinion that Alexander was sorry for all of those. "However, I am certain that Alexander, was the only one of the ancient kings who, from nobility of character, repented of the errors which he had committed."

 
  • Like
Reactions: macon
Feb 2019
936
Serbia
Listen kid, you better stop being so arrogant. It is laughable that you've never read any of the ancient sources or modern scholars, but still try to prove here something.

You don't have an unfiltered view of Alexander ( it is laughable that you think so ) and your claims are not closely supported by the facts. You didn't make any good arguments, because you lack knowledge on Alexander or Philip and it shows.

You also never gave us the sources that you are using to base these opinions on. That was the question of WhatAnArtist.
Please, don't feed the troll, he obviously isn't here to discuss history.
 
Jun 2019
39
USA
To be fair, Arrian did express his opinion that Alexander was sorry for all of those. "However, I am certain that Alexander, was the only one of the ancient kings who, from nobility of character, repented of the errors which he had committed."
Arrian gave Alexander a pass (which is not uncommon among Greek and Roman writers). Hence the title of "Great" and halo effect. Arrian himself doesn't even dispute his own admiration.

To quote Arrian:
"For my own part… it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human being could not have been born without the agency of the deity."

Not sorry.
 
Feb 2019
525
Thrace
Arrian gave Alexander a pass (which is not uncommon among Greek and Roman writers). Hence the title of "Great" and halo effect. Arrian himself doesn't even dispute his own admiration.

To quote Arrian:
"For my own part… it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human being could not have been born without the agency of the deity."

Not sorry.

Does all that admiration amount to nothing? With all his faults and taking in consideration Philip's contribution, fact remains he conquered the largest empire in history up to that point. Having great commanders doesn't wipe that out of his resume. Genghis Khan also had superlative generals, as well as nearly all great conquerors.
 
Nov 2011
1,110
The Bluff
In my opinion, Alexander was a historical outlier. An angry, genocidal, war-mongering megalomaniac and momma's boy who should give all the credit in the world to his father. No alcoholic drunk, reckless teenager, or psychopathic prince has ever benefited so much from outcome bias. His accomplishments were either stolen from the work of others or borrowed from his army. He is obviously more myth than man; but as a boy king he knew nothing of grand strategy, nation-building, or tactics beyond opportunism and selfish risk-taking. He truly believed he was a god and could not be killed. War and glory (to include gambling with his army) were thus his playground and his true legacy is that of an ego-centric monster given way too much power to play with.

I made it clear in my follow on post that my arguments are supported by common knowledge. Facts like Alexander’s youth, drinking, deification, and mayhem, -to include the savage destruction of Tyre, Thebes, and Persepolis-, -along with his obsessions with personal glory, violence, and conquest are supported by a multitude of sources. The fact that Alexander was badly wounded in several battles is also well known, as well as his risk taking and impatience at any one of his major battles. His empire was even disintegrated after his death, and his genius -to include repeated destruction of million men armies and nation building- are either fabricated lies or products of outcome bias. The problem is total war noobs like yourself (and Emperor-God king wannabes), have a groupthink interpretation of anything to do with Alexander. In Freudian psychology, we might call this as compensating for small packages, but in academia we just call it hero worship.
Ignoring, for the moment, the bombast and belligerence that lace your posts, it seems you suffer from something of a cognitive dissonance here. You aggressively spout a view of Alexander that is at one extreme end of the spectrum and, in the same post, belittle others for - in your view - propounding the opposite end of that same spectrum. All the while you seem blissfully unaware that you apply twenty-first century moral views to the actions of a person (and people) who lived in a world and society wholly removed and unlike the one you whose comforting morals and societal norms you use as a basis for judgement. A world where Athens could vote to kill all males of military age in Mytilene (even though revoked, though such would not happen for Melos). A world where the Spartans could do similar at Plataia. A world where generals (Antigonos for example) would slaughter his opposing commanders. A world where Rome would level Corinth and Carthage and Sulla would wait until the blood ran in rivers through the kerameikos before calling a halt to the butchering of Athens. Examples abound.

I, like Mastersonmcvoidson, do not believe you are here for any real discussion. You are here to lob aggressively framed lures in the look for a rise and and a bite. Your posts lack respect and display a belligerence which speaks to anything but the academia you would claim to be part of.