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?
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?