I see Alexander as invoking the persona of Achilles, whereas Philip might be more like Odysseus in character. He deserves more credit than he generally gets. I'm consistently impressed with your guests, they've all been excellent! ***.
Lantern Jack calls this awesome book by Adrian Goldsworthy a "hefty tome." The book was such a pleasurable read that I didn't think of it as such. I probably finished it within a week. It is now one of my favorite treasured books. Adrian Goldsworthy is the best writer about ancient military history at the present time.
I usually see Phillip as the guy who created an amazing racing team that won all the races, and then his son took over in the last race, speeding the car until it ran out of gas. This interview just cemented my believe. Great show. ***
Even If army was great, someone said that most people, and Philip , would take the offer to take management of half Persian empire, if won those super battles. It was Alex that focused on all or nothing which is very rare And in comparison to Hannibal or Pyrrhus such a big difference. Hannibal did not really want to conquer Rome, twice left aside the opportunity as did Pyrrhus. Also they both did not focus, and as compairison Alex went around 2 years in dessert just to find the Pwrisna king and focus on fcapture the guy before is complete goal while won great battles.
With all due respect, a one-dimensional analysis. A better, if oversimplified analogy would've been "Philip built a state of the art racing team that eventually won one race, then Alexander took over and won multiple races. Of course, he had to rebuilt everything, for when Philip passed, it was all but bankrupt and defunct. Except for the car itself, that is, but Alexander still had to fight for the keys...
Excellent podcast! Your work is always objective, devoid of ideology and very informative. I appreciate your presentation style immensely. Goldsworthy is arguably the finest ancient historian out there today. All of his works are fantastic- I especially recommend his book on Julius Caesar. Good luck with your ongoing podcast and UA-cam channel.
Good to hear Philip II being put forward as the foundation for Alexander's success. He deserves that credit, as Alexander deserves his acclamation as conqueror. Interesting views on what might have been if Philip had lived and if Alexander had not died. Also good to hear the fact that so much of the information is lacking, it is a challenge to know why individuals, famous or not did what they did, or their viewpoints and motivations. Thank you, excellent pod caste and a book I would love to own ***
@@LanternJack oh and if I still can: Alexander gets the prize, there's only few people in history who can compare themselves to him. Philip is the real OG for paving the road for him, but that empire wasn't going to conquer itself!***
I've recently started listening to Lantern's illuminating podcast and I'm enjoying it thoroughly. He has great guests, he knows how to ask the questions that have the potential to enhance the conversation and bring novel insights into the picture. I look forward to the follow-up to Plato's Republic and to other equally exciting shows. Well done and great to see that you've moved to video.
Tbh, as someone who refers to Phillip as "the Great" in his head, I'm not so quick to immediately say that he eclipses his son. Yes, Philip was more experienced with the diplomacy of his time and how to deal with the relationships between the major powers around him, but he was also largely responsible for the lacking areas Alexander had to deal with. The fact of the matter is that Alexander had been brought up with a corrupting influence (Olympias) and was given a task that had not been completely revealed. I'm of the mind that Phillip, his entire life having lived and reigned with the Achaemenid Empire as perpetual looming force, wasn't quite certain that he could entirely manage a complete takeover. He was much more familiar with the dominance of the Persians and could've likely considered a few territorial gains while placing them as a 'puppet' of Macedon rather than going 'all in' and taking their throne for himself. Remember, Phillip had experienced defeat before and was much more settled into the norms of the historical combat within the 'Greece/Persia' dynamic. Alexander did not have the same familiarity with the various places and situations that his father did, which, I think, was an advantage in this case. The odds, ones that seemed risky to Phillip, seemed favorable to Alexander, who wasn't weighed down by previous association. Phillip built the machine, yes, but Alexander improved it in so many ways. Phillip was like the storm clouds looming overhead whereas, his son was like the lightning bolt that blazes what stands in front of it. Even the descriptions of their mobilizations seem to bear this out. Phillip would pick a spot, knock it over like an opposing chess piece and then tell the enemy all the ways in which they are screwed. Alexander would appear out of nowhere and evaporate resistance with godly speed and dare anyone to try anything after they had witnessed him practically 'teleport' to them from the other side of the map and subdue them. The primary tragedies here are their deaths, which robbed us of either endgame being realized. Even without that, those two historical figures are prime examples of larger-than-life 'Greatness' that cannot be ignored.
@@lindencamelback2305 I'm not saying you're wrong. I've just gotten a little cautious with those labels due to the way that they imply the exclusivity of each to those roles. Alexander oversaw, tactical and technological, improvements to that army throughout his tenure. Whether amping up the machinery or altering operation. He Improvised so often it was like he decided to write the manual as he went. Whereas Phillip demonstrated every bit of the same organization and mobility (if on a smaller scale) and gave us a more administratively focused look at the system. Our most plausible look at how Alexander may have gone about running things if he didn't head straight into his Arabian campaign. Either way, the "Greats" tend to leave you guessing whenever they're involved.
Another great interview by Lantern Jack who sports a plume that rivals a Corinthian helmet. He always has his guests do most of the talking, answering great questions. I think Philip is greater than his son as he bequeathed his son a chest fully stocked with the best tools and full of money. Philip could have managed the same level of conquest as his son, but it's hard to imagine that his ambitions would have stretched so far as Alexander's manic ones.***.
This one is factually incorrect. Alexander inherited debt, internal and external threats, and even not very clear line of succession. He dealt with all but the first one in an expeditious manner. The lack of funds and some other related things, however, forced him to fundamentally alter his Asia Minor campaign blueprints. Eventually, it was resolved too, of course.
Long time listener, first time smashing that like button! The Republic Series is amazing so far as is this conversation. Cheers and thanks for the fascinating listening!
Just finished reading Plutarch's life of Alexander and then watched this podcast. Great job - really enjoyed the video (I like the podcasts but enjoy them in video form more).
I rely on you to fill me in on Ancient Greece. You do so brilliantly. Your exceptional interviews offer a front row seat on the drama of the past, Thanks!
I really loved this episode! Even though I knew a little bit about Phillip, I didn't fully realize the impact that he had on Alexander's life and legacy. To me, Phillip had more accomplishments, being a little more self made. ***
Alexander went into exile, then in part thanks to Philip, had to fight for the throne, albeit in typical for Alexander brief and seemingly effortless fashion. Indeed, Philip seems like a self-made man, but Alexander didn't just inherit everything on a silver platter either. He too doesn't get enough credit at times.
Another excellent episode. I had to smile when you brought up the "what if Alexander went west" debate with Steele Brand. Really enjoyed this one and, much as I am enjoying the Republic series, I welcome the occasional break ***
Just listened to the podcast. Really great to put some faces to the voices (also of Mr. Goldsworthy). I devoured his book about Julius Ceasar as I am doing this fabulous podcast. Keep it up and best regards from Germany!
Congratulations for the video and the book. Knowledge of history is the most important thing for the betterment of society. Imagine people thinking Macedonians aren't Greeks.
Interesting interview. I enjoyed the discussion on historical hindsight making events seem almost inevitable when we moderns read about them. But of course the accomplishments of Philip and Alexander not only did not seem inevitable to their contemporaries, they must have seemed utterly unlikely. I’m reminded of the scene in Plato’s dialogue, Alcibiades, in which Socrates humbles a young Alcibiades by contrasting the latter’s meager resources with the utter dominance and power of the King of Persia. Sure the Greeks had proven that they were capable of keeping the Persians out of Greece, but the thought of a Greek or a Macedonian conquering the Persian Empire must have seemed simply absurd. However, I believe this idea slowly began to change beginning with Xenophon’s Anabasis, in which he records that he and the Greek mercenary army, the ‘Ten-Thousand,’ had dominated in nearly every pitched battle fought against a foreign adversary during their trek through the Persian Empire (401-399). Just a few years later (395), Agesilaus of Sparta ripped through the westernmost Persian satrapy and even sacked its capital, Sardis. It is even recorded that the Spartan king had plans to go on to invade Cappadocia the following campaign season had he not been summoned back to Greece due to the outbreak of the Corinthian War. And then there was Isocrates of Athens (436-338), a public intellectual, rhetorician, educator, and older contemporary of Philip and Alexander, who-perhaps more than anyone else-seriously considered the prospect of a Greek or Macedonian going on the offensive against the Persian Empire. For decades his writings contain an eagerness for a Panhellenic champion (he had hoped this to manifest in one of the successors of Jason of Pherae or in Archdiamus III of Sparta, but ultimately realized his hopes in Philip) to cease the Greeks’ wars with each other and instead redirect their martial efforts against the Persians. In response to your question at the end of the video, I believe Alexander certainly accomplished (in terms of lasting historical impact) more than Philip, but that those accomplishments were made possible due to the foundations created by his father.***
Thank, Matt, for your insightful historical overview. You make a good case that Philip & Alexander, while extraordinary, were part of a larger trend that was already happening.
Enjoyed the interview thoroughly! I think the point about Alexander dying just at the right time is very important. I cannot make up my mind about who accomplished more but Philip II is definitely underappreciated. I recommend anyone traveling to Greece to visit his tomb near Vergina. ***
Another brilliant episode. For me it's got to be Alexander over Phillip, not only under contemporary circumstances but Alexander's influence throughout the last 2000 years to me is an achievement in itself, and puts him far above Phillip. ***
Great seeing you Lantern Jack after only listening for so long on your podcast. Fantastic episode too. I enjoy Mr. Goldsworthy’s books, especially the fictional Vindolanda series. Here, I think Alexander eclipses his father once again.***
Let's not forget someone who worked for Philip II, who was incredibly impactful to history. Philip's siege engineer (and overall engineer) Polyidus has been credited for the first ever torsion catapult, and the Hellene's first use of massive siege towers. Polyidus' student Diades of Pella took over the engineering reins under Alexander.
Wonderful podcast! I think Alexander did more with his life. Military innovation and state craft, these are difficult to measure and Philip was extraordinary. But your esteemed guest made a keen and relevant remark. Archaeology shows the sorta zoomed out time scale vs written history’s minutiae. With a broader scope in mind, I can think of no greater intersectional node than Alexander the Great. So if I may consider his “accomplishments” to include the impact he had on the world, from hi art to trade routes, then no one accomplished more than Alexander. But let me add, Alexander did stand on some gigantic shoulders ***
Just listened to the podcast 👌, thanks and keep up the good work! I think I rate Phillip over Alexander because his achievements appear to arise from more challenging circumstances. * * *
Phillip created the instrument with which Alexander could use to build his legacy. So Phillip being the greater ruler in my opinion considering what he started with to how he left Macedon at his death. I would say it’s poetic that Alexander fulfilled his father’s legacy and conquered the Persian empire… but he also likely had a hand in/knew of the plot to assassinate his father so maybe not so romantic… loved the episode! ***
Oh hey man. Was listening to your latest podcast like always, loved it of course. Your last episode on Philip might be your best. Anyways, you have a UA-cam channel!!! Good luck bro. 🤜🤛 Like, commented and subscribed.
It's a bizarre experience to hear such a familiar voice out of a face that I've never seen! Love the video format! I think that all things considered, Philip was way more impressive in that he actually made a conquering machine out of a backwater. Philip invented the car, Alexander won a great race with it and then crashed and died. ***
A popular, if unoriginal analogy. Also, a somewhat innacurate one too. Philip did a lot more than just invent a car. He won (and lost) a few races himself. But it was he who got in a wreck and died, and it was Alexander who rebuilt it and heavily changed and modified it for a multitude of new courses, all of which he won. I simply don't understand what do you mean by his crashing it...
Great interview! I really enjoyed the discussion and I think that Alexander accomplished more in total, although it would not have been possible without Philips foundation. * * *
I loved Adrian's push back against this trend to downplay the great men of history as well as his point against the idea of viewing history as a series of inevitable events. As far as the book, what can I say? I own it and would highly recommend it too any fan of the time period. I didn't realize how much I didn't know about Philip until I read this book, and it's a shame that he gets so little of the credit, it's easy to understand why of course, because Alexander is so captivating a figure that he overshadows everyone else around him even before he becomes the ruler of Macedon. Whether or not you see Alexander as a hero or villain? well I find that the truth of the matter is, that hero is perhaps not the right word to use for great men of history, because it portrays an inaccurate view of mans nature, no man is wholly good or evil in my view and a great man must be capable of both great cruelty and great compassion and we see this in men like Alexander. He did destroy and kill many people in many different parts of the ancient world, but we also know that he showed mercy and forgiveness to many people as well. Real life is not a comic book or a movie, the ideal hero from that perspective does not exist. All of that without even considering the personal beliefs through which each individual or group views the world, such as religion and political ideology, to a Christian Alexander probably looks like a monster, to a Pagan Alexander may very well be a hero in the classical sense.
Alexander didn't do everything in Philip's book. He rarely took Parmenio's advice who was Phillip's most trusted general. He perfected the cavalry and the phalanx basically one upping his father. He reconstructs his army to fight Bactrian guerrillas, he masterfully deceives. Undoubtedly Philip is underrated due to the fame of his son. But Alexander himself is a bit underrated as well. There is a reason that Hannibal, Caesar, Pompey, Augustus, and even Napoleon modeled themselves after Alexander... He had quite some skills.
No comment on Alexander fulfilling the archetype of the dying god, the young man who attains great glory but is sacrificed young to the Mother Goddess?
Having listened to the points presented in this interview, I may be leaning toward Philip being the greater. I never realized how much groundwork he had laid. My favorite comparison of the whole interview was that equating Macedon's actual rise to that of Belgium taking over the world. Always a great listen. ***
Indeed. But we must bear in mind that Phillip just wanted to free the ionian greeks maybe win Persia partly or wholely but he had more retrictes horizons than Alexander. Alexander was more visionary a genius of his age and many years ahead of his time as a military leader and a ruler. He wanted to melt civilisations he conquered with the greek and he didnt have the restricted greek perception of asians as barbarians in everything. He pretty much saw them as equals and that can be proved on how he organised and but cities and esteblished the first administrations. And of course we can see that in the mutinies from his army that couldnt understand why they had to share the gains of their win with the barbarians, and rule together in many cases in the satrapies.. Without Philip of course there is no Alexander. He cemented the campaign but everything else goes to Alexanders genius. A Mozart of his time as a ruler.
@@haroldalexander7268 good analysis, sounds like you've researched far beyond the interview. I am not certain, though, that Alexander believed that conquered people were his equal, at least sincerely.
@@alecbundy527 No he didn't think that of course. Not equals. But as time went by, his mindset changed concerning the so called barbarians as they were known in the greek world. It changed for the better as time went by in contrast to the classic Macedonian and greek perception of the soldiers etc who thought of them as barbarians and only that.
Great episode! I’d say Alexander accomplished more in absolute terms, but not in relative ones. I guess fame and legend really values more the first. ***
Weird how that goes... Yesterday I'm listening to this great discussion about who exceeds Alexander. This morning read this in Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan and "In the late 1230s, after extraordinary successes in Central Asia masterminded by Ögödei, who became Great Khan, or supreme leader, soon after his father’s death, the Mongols launched one of the most stunning attacks in the history of warfare, mounting a campaign that surpassed even that of Alexander the Great." *** So I guess I found another contender 😄
@@LanternJack Agreed! imo, Genghis Khan was Philip II and Alexander rolled into one, plus he lived to hold onto, (re)organize and rule a humongous empire, and pass it on to his descendants. Kublai Khan was his grandson I think...Granted, some 1.5k years after Philip and Alexander. The secret history of the Mongols also had a bit in it that might have been repeated from Greek history: GK's mother, Hoelun, famously bared her chest to make her point just like Olympias did. Not a coincidence methinks... The Mongol army could move very fast as well, as fast as 600km/day according to some scholars (John Man). Imo they could do so as they were practically living on their horses, but also eating a ketogenic hunter/gatherer diet that enabled them to be sharp fighters while eating only once a day, or less. "The Mongol Empire .....was four times as large as the empire of Alexander the Great and twice as the Roman Empire" , according to the thesis of Argyroula Balasa...
Alexander was a worthy and arguably superior heir to a great king. He owes everything to Philip but it is arguable that Philip could not have achieved what Alexander did.
Alexander ended up as a legend for all history in 30-something years. Phillip paved the way but Alexander may have achieved more than any other human in history respectively
He didn't die before problems start, he was the only guy to beat the Afghan warriors in skirmish strange warfare, not straight battle. Which would be his game. And still conquered the middle terrain, with their kings giving Alex to their sons as name to prove worthy of kingship.
Thanks for the interview. Great listening. It depends on what you mean by 'achieve' but certainly Alexander reaches Herculean like status through his achievements. So I think Alexander takes the cake ***
Nice! Alexander needed Philip but Philip made it all possible... As Alxeander died young we just do not know what he might have done later though. Not a lazy guy that Alexander.
The sheer scope of Alexander's conquests shows he "accomplished more" but it's still tough to claim he was better at building and leading. He died before he could consolidate his power and establish structure to his empire. The interview was great, but I'm really gonna need to read the book for a clearer picture. * * *
So Alexander was the James Dean of the ancient world. Alexander is the hero (in the ancient sense) but Phillip is more compelling because his story is more culturally obscure vis a vis his son. ***
Compared to where they started from, Philip accomplished more than Alexander. He not only unified Macedonia, created a standing, preeminent army, expanded his influence in the north, and forged diplomatic ties throughout the Greek and non-Greek world, he also initiated the campaign against Persia, which his son would carry through the completion. As many have said before, without Philip there would have been no Alexander. ***
Excellent episode. As for your question, that is a tough one! As was mentioned in your show, Philip had a more well-rounded set of skills, including social skills, diplomacy, military innovation. On the other hand, Alexander was one of the few military geniuses in history, and conquered a great empire. On balance, I'd have to give the accolade to Philip. You could say we admire Philip for his "nous" and Alexander for his "thumos". ***
I don't think you give enough credit to Alexander in terms of social skill, diplomacy and esp military innovation. Plenty of examples for all even in the primaries...
Personally... I think that Philip and Alexander were both "Great" each in their own right. But can you imagine if Philip had survived another 10 or 20 years and had been with Alexander on his (or thier) conquests across Persia and into Asia?? There would have been no stopping them. Well, there was no stopping of Alexander... but I can only imagine how much futher those fierce Lions of Macedon would gone with Philip and Alexander both at the helm. Surely, the would have inspired the troops to drive deeper into India and maybe even into China... and / or... to turn back westward into Europe and they easily would have taken the city-states of Rome and Carthage... and who knows how much further they would have gone.
Just to be pedantic, Philip had to abandon at least two sieges for good; Alexander, during his forced blitzkrieg through Asia Minor, altogether bypassed a number of defiant places. Of course, they were still submitted one way or another in his absence.
Wonderful interview! I would say Philip accomplished more. He made all subsequent accomplishments possible! In light of this interview, I’m inclined to reread what Herodotus and Thucydides wrote about pre-Philip II Macedon.***
I think Alexander was quite literally addicted to combat. I think he thought it was the most fun thing to do, gave him a buzz like no other, and really frankly wasn’t too interested in the monotony of ruling a kingdom
A very interesting discussion. I don't think I've appreciated just how much of a foundation Philip had built for Alexander, I guess I just assumed he was only really of note for being the father of Alexander. I think I would still say Alexander accomplished more, just because of the huge amount of territory conquered and in so short a time, and perhaps because he is better remembered and has had more of an impact on culture/stories/myths ever since. Without the subsequent achievements of Alexander would many people have even heard of Philip. * * *
Can Adrian explained to me how does a king go to war when u have enemies within and without. To reach India, its 5-7000km away. How long is the supply chain gonna be? Who is maintaining the supply chain so that enemies dont revolt? How many soldiers do Alexander have to move that far?
Still Alex is the genius with the uncompromising approach. There are details that portray. Once scouters showed enemy army found sleeping. With opportunity to massacre enemy army during the night , with Alex saying no, in ierse to only win with straight competition.
My take is that they wouldn’t have been recognized for greatness without eachother. Not many would even know of Philip without Alexanders feats having stemmed from his reforms of Macedonia and its army. Likewise Alexander wouldn’t have gotten to where he did without the jumpstart he inherented from Philip. Philip opened up the way to attacking Persia and have a chance to beat Theo. Alexander executed it and went far much further than Philip could’ve imagined, nor would’ve gone. Like said, Alexander was a force of nature that didn’t and wouldn’t have stopped conquerring.
Apples to Oranges. I think Phil likely could've conquered Persia with his reforms, but Al as a strategist and general was sublime, and unmatched at improvising, almost at the expense of all other things in his life, Phil was by far the better statesman.
I really enjoyed the discussion about the role of individuals vs the wider social context in the world. On a minor note, it's worth pointing out with regard to the Russian warlord in the 11th century being meaningless because the Mongols are coming, the Mongols might not necessarily have come. Chinggis Khan could have very easily died before he grew up to become the great conqueror. He very nearly didn't survive childhood. Of course someone else potentially could have united the Mongol tribes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would have, or that even having done so they would have done the same things as Chinggis and his family did. Maybe they would have conquered China and Korea but never gone west. Who knows? Personally, I'm a communist, a Marxist, and people tend to assume that Marxists claim that all of history is inevitable, individuals don't matter at all, but that's not really necessarily the case. Of course you do have people like that, not only among Marxists of course, but if someone is using historical materialism correctly, it's more like, the wider social conditions kind of set the limits of what is possible. But then human beings are the ones who act within those possibilities. And there are so many things that can go into that, and change the way history could turn out. Individuals don't change the world alone. Neither do the wider social forces. Rather it's an interaction between the two. And sometimes one force wins when it could have lost, another lost when it could have won, and history turns out differently. If Hannibal had destroyed the city of Rome (which, who knows if that was even his goal), the world WOULD have turned out very differently, because the Roman Empire was such a defining force later on, which did so much to shape the world as it has become, for better or worse. It's difficult to imagine a world where Carthage became the dominant power, but that world COULD have existed. Of course, you also have to look at the social forces there, the Carthaginians had a much smaller population than Rome did, a lot less manpower, different ideas of war and what constituted victory. What Hannibal did was pretty exceptional, and he was seriously pushing against the boundaries of what was possible within the material conditions (you can tell because none of the other Carthaginians were achieving much of anything in the Second Punic War, it was basically all Hannibal and his army). But he could have won, and the world would have turned out differently. Material conditions set the stage, but then human beings are the ones who act out the play and decide what happens with it.
Fantastic interview. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Deciding on whether the father or son did more is a moot point as each achieved more than anyone could have expected or dreamed. Each did something novel and incomparable. Thanks again ***
It would appear that Alexander's strategy towards the places he conquered was that he would leave the already-powers-that-be in these various places in power to govern as that had been... so long as they played ball, paid tribute and didn't give him any trouble.
Not incorrect but there is one substantial difference: he substantially curbed the powers of the satraps to make his domain much more centralized than under prior rulers.
Hello, Jack like your podcast. I think Philip is greater then Alexander for he turns the backwater kingdom into a regional power, Alexander turns it into a superpower. I think there's some similarity between Philip and Alexander and Frederick William and Frederick the great of Prussia. The fathers build the tools for the son to conquer. ***
They ask who else in history might be 'like Alexander' and Napoleon is mentioned but what about Genghis Khan, he is 'most like Alexander, and yet others could be added to the list, and it would be how they are like Alexander and how are they not. Alexander is not just a conqueror he is an innovator of cosmopolis, the idea of transforming society into what today we could call a cosmopolis, a place where multiculturalism is strong, but with a common bond of a ruling culture that respects true diversity, not the fake diversity we see today. Genghis Khan had that same attitude that Alexander had where he valued expertise, loyalty, innovation, over tradition, tribal and clan loyalty alone. As to could Alexander be a statesman and rule like Philip. Yes, Alexander does make some brash decisions, but learns from them, like Philip went through a similar learning process to gain the necessary choices and experiences that shaped his later insight as a statesman, and how and what he values. Alexander had that same sense, and had his own version of that sense of seeking what truly held value in things like creativity, and transforming society. So once he was master of Asia, he would have probably created, like the United States, a single Hellenistic society like we have American Society, from coast to coast, but in Alexanders resulting empire. Plus, like the Romans, once he discovered China existed, realistically, if he eventually fought a second campaign to successfully subdue India, and since someone who was inspired by Alexander later did do just that, if such a person worked within Alexanders forces that would have most likely happened, with that China would be found and we'd have gotten stories of how the West invaded the Far East at some point, the stuff of epic cinema. But with Alexander died that dream.
Considering that today is Father's Day I think that the best gift any dad can receive is a son who overcomes him ***.
couldn't agree more!
And the best gift the father could give a son? He could inherit the best army in the world to conquer it.. lol
I see Alexander as invoking the persona of Achilles, whereas Philip might be more like Odysseus in character. He deserves more credit than he generally gets. I'm consistently impressed with your guests, they've all been excellent! ***.
Thanks, Kristoffer!
Lantern Jack calls this awesome book by Adrian Goldsworthy a "hefty tome." The book was such a pleasurable read that I didn't think of it as such. I probably finished it within a week. It is now one of my favorite treasured books.
Adrian Goldsworthy is the best writer about ancient military history at the present time.
great interview and amazing historian & author.
Looking forward to getting my hands on a copy of this book soon.
Just got my copy today.
This is the first book I have will have read from Adrian Goldsworthy, I’m really looking forward to it.
Perfect topic for Father's day weekend!***
I hadn't thought of that, but you're so right!
I usually see Phillip as the guy who created an amazing racing team that won all the races, and then his son took over in the last race, speeding the car until it ran out of gas. This interview just cemented my believe. Great show. ***
brutal commentary, but funny ;P
Even If army was great, someone said that most people, and Philip , would take the offer to take management of half Persian empire, if won those super battles.
It was Alex that focused on all or nothing which is very rare
And in comparison to Hannibal or Pyrrhus such a big difference. Hannibal did not really want to conquer Rome, twice left aside the opportunity as did Pyrrhus. Also they both did not focus, and as compairison Alex went around 2 years in dessert just to find the Pwrisna king and focus on fcapture the guy before is complete goal while won great battles.
With all due respect, a one-dimensional analysis. A better, if oversimplified analogy would've been "Philip built a state of the art racing team that eventually won one race, then Alexander took over and won multiple races. Of course, he had to rebuilt everything, for when Philip passed, it was all but bankrupt and defunct. Except for the car itself, that is, but Alexander still had to fight for the keys...
Great interview!
Btw I’d love a video tour of your bookshelves sometime. Looks like a very interesting collection you’ve got there 🤔
Haha, maybe one day!
Excellent podcast! Your work is always objective, devoid of ideology and very informative. I appreciate your presentation style immensely.
Goldsworthy is arguably the finest ancient historian out there today. All of his works are fantastic- I especially recommend his book on Julius Caesar.
Good luck with your ongoing podcast and UA-cam channel.
Thanks very much, A! Glad you enjoyed it.
What a great interview. Goldsworthy is just as engaging to listen as to read. Kudos.
Thank you, Sean!
Good to hear Philip II being put forward as the foundation for Alexander's success. He deserves that credit, as Alexander deserves his acclamation as conqueror. Interesting views on what might have been if Philip had lived and if Alexander had not died. Also good to hear the fact that so much of the information is lacking, it is a challenge to know why individuals, famous or not did what they did, or their viewpoints and motivations. Thank you, excellent pod caste and a book I would love to own ***
First time seeing your glorious haircut. What splendour.
that's what i like to hear ;P
@@LanternJack oh and if I still can:
Alexander gets the prize, there's only few people in history who can compare themselves to him. Philip is the real OG for paving the road for him, but that empire wasn't going to conquer itself!***
I've recently started listening to Lantern's illuminating podcast and I'm enjoying it thoroughly. He has great guests, he knows how to ask the questions that have the potential to enhance the conversation and bring novel insights into the picture. I look forward to the follow-up to Plato's Republic and to other equally exciting shows. Well done and great to see that you've moved to video.
Thank you, Cristian, for the very kind words!
Excited about this new visual component to your discussions.
😎
Love this podcast, glad it's now on YT!
It's good to be on this platform!
Tbh, as someone who refers to Phillip as "the Great" in his head, I'm not so quick to immediately say that he eclipses his son. Yes, Philip was more experienced with the diplomacy of his time and how to deal with the relationships between the major powers around him, but he was also largely responsible for the lacking areas Alexander had to deal with. The fact of the matter is that Alexander had been brought up with a corrupting influence (Olympias) and was given a task that had not been completely revealed. I'm of the mind that Phillip, his entire life having lived and reigned with the Achaemenid Empire as perpetual looming force, wasn't quite certain that he could entirely manage a complete takeover. He was much more familiar with the dominance of the Persians and could've likely considered a few territorial gains while placing them as a 'puppet' of Macedon rather than going 'all in' and taking their throne for himself. Remember, Phillip had experienced defeat before and was much more settled into the norms of the historical combat within the 'Greece/Persia' dynamic. Alexander did not have the same familiarity with the various places and situations that his father did, which, I think, was an advantage in this case. The odds, ones that seemed risky to Phillip, seemed favorable to Alexander, who wasn't weighed down by previous association. Phillip built the machine, yes, but Alexander improved it in so many ways. Phillip was like the storm clouds looming overhead whereas, his son was like the lightning bolt that blazes what stands in front of it. Even the descriptions of their mobilizations seem to bear this out. Phillip would pick a spot, knock it over like an opposing chess piece and then tell the enemy all the ways in which they are screwed. Alexander would appear out of nowhere and evaporate resistance with godly speed and dare anyone to try anything after they had witnessed him practically 'teleport' to them from the other side of the map and subdue them. The primary tragedies here are their deaths, which robbed us of either endgame being realized. Even without that, those two historical figures are prime examples of larger-than-life 'Greatness' that cannot be ignored.
I agree. Philip is like the car mechanic, Alexander the car driver. Both were geniuses.
@@lindencamelback2305 I'm not saying you're wrong. I've just gotten a little cautious with those labels due to the way that they imply the exclusivity of each to those roles.
Alexander oversaw, tactical and technological, improvements to that army throughout his tenure. Whether amping up the machinery or altering operation. He Improvised so often it was like he decided to write the manual as he went.
Whereas Phillip demonstrated every bit of the same organization and mobility (if on a smaller scale) and gave us a more administratively focused look at the system. Our most plausible look at how Alexander may have gone about running things if he didn't head straight into his Arabian campaign.
Either way, the "Greats" tend to leave you guessing whenever they're involved.
@@jaded9234 Totally agree. Both were like supermen from another world, but weak on the booze.
I'm reading this book right and happened across this episode on Spotify, I was delighted !!
Another great interview by Lantern Jack who sports a plume that rivals a Corinthian helmet. He always has his guests do most of the talking, answering great questions. I think Philip is greater than his son as he bequeathed his son a chest fully stocked with the best tools and full of money. Philip could have managed the same level of conquest as his son, but it's hard to imagine that his ambitions would have stretched so far as Alexander's manic ones.***.
Haha, thanks Greg! Maybe I should call it a Corinthian Mohawk :P Thanks for the insightful comment. Your *** has been noted ;)
This one is factually incorrect. Alexander inherited debt, internal and external threats, and even not very clear line of succession. He dealt with all but the first one in an expeditious manner. The lack of funds and some other related things, however, forced him to fundamentally alter his Asia Minor campaign blueprints. Eventually, it was resolved too, of course.
Yes, it's hard to look at his face, "plume" indeed.
Oh this is the same interview I just heard. I think I prefer this format actually.
I love this podcast and have been following you for some months. I am glad to find your here in this new format!
Yay, thank you!
These are really good questions.
Long time listener, first time smashing that like button! The Republic Series is amazing so far as is this conversation. Cheers and thanks for the fascinating listening!
Thank you for adding the video format! Much appreciated. :)
Just finished reading Plutarch's life of Alexander and then watched this podcast. Great job - really enjoyed the video (I like the podcasts but enjoy them in video form more).
Awesome, thank you! Will try to have a video component to most conversations going forward.
Love the new format!
I rely on you to fill me in on Ancient Greece. You do so brilliantly. Your exceptional interviews offer a front row seat on the drama of the past, Thanks!
Thank you for the kind words and encouragement, Bernice!
Ancient Macedonia *
@@БОЈАНКУШОВСКИMacedonia was & is in Greece! 👍🏻
@@БОЈАНКУШОВСКИ no flat earthers allowed...there is no denying the Greekness of Alexander and Macedonia....
MAKEDONIJA ----- 25 CENTURIES IN SOUTH EVROPA ! ! ! ! !
I really loved this episode! Even though I knew a little bit about Phillip, I didn't fully realize the impact that he had on Alexander's life and legacy. To me, Phillip had more accomplishments, being a little more self made. ***
Rooting for the self-made underdog, eh? I dig it.
Alexander went into exile, then in part thanks to Philip, had to fight for the throne, albeit in typical for Alexander brief and seemingly effortless fashion. Indeed, Philip seems like a self-made man, but Alexander didn't just inherit everything on a silver platter either. He too doesn't get enough credit at times.
Another excellent episode. I had to smile when you brought up the "what if Alexander went west" debate with Steele Brand. Really enjoyed this one and, much as I am enjoying the Republic series, I welcome the occasional break ***
Thanks, V! Glad you enjoyed it.
Just listened to the podcast. Really great to put some faces to the voices (also of Mr. Goldsworthy). I devoured his book about Julius Ceasar as I am doing this fabulous podcast.
Keep it up and best regards from Germany!
Vielen dank!
This is a fantastic interview. Both interviewer and interviewee. Very well spoken and informative
Congratulations for the video and the book. Knowledge of history is the most important thing for the betterment of society. Imagine people thinking Macedonians aren't Greeks.
I do actually really appreciate the visual. I prefer videos over podcasts.
Interesting interview. I enjoyed the discussion on historical hindsight making events seem almost inevitable when we moderns read about them. But of course the accomplishments of Philip and Alexander not only did not seem inevitable to their contemporaries, they must have seemed utterly unlikely. I’m reminded of the scene in Plato’s dialogue, Alcibiades, in which Socrates humbles a young Alcibiades by contrasting the latter’s meager resources with the utter dominance and power of the King of Persia. Sure the Greeks had proven that they were capable of keeping the Persians out of Greece, but the thought of a Greek or a Macedonian conquering the Persian Empire must have seemed simply absurd.
However, I believe this idea slowly began to change beginning with Xenophon’s Anabasis, in which he records that he and the Greek mercenary army, the ‘Ten-Thousand,’ had dominated in nearly every pitched battle fought against a foreign adversary during their trek through the Persian Empire (401-399).
Just a few years later (395), Agesilaus of Sparta ripped through the westernmost Persian satrapy and even sacked its capital, Sardis. It is even recorded that the Spartan king had plans to go on to invade Cappadocia the following campaign season had he not been summoned back to Greece due to the outbreak of the Corinthian War.
And then there was Isocrates of Athens (436-338), a public intellectual, rhetorician, educator, and older contemporary of Philip and Alexander, who-perhaps more than anyone else-seriously considered the prospect of a Greek or Macedonian going on the offensive against the Persian Empire. For decades his writings contain an eagerness for a Panhellenic champion (he had hoped this to manifest in one of the successors of Jason of Pherae or in Archdiamus III of Sparta, but ultimately realized his hopes in Philip) to cease the Greeks’ wars with each other and instead redirect their martial efforts against the Persians.
In response to your question at the end of the video, I believe Alexander certainly accomplished (in terms of lasting historical impact) more than Philip, but that those accomplishments were made possible due to the foundations created by his father.***
Thank, Matt, for your insightful historical overview. You make a good case that Philip & Alexander, while extraordinary, were part of a larger trend that was already happening.
Enjoyed the interview thoroughly! I think the point about Alexander dying just at the right time is very important. I cannot make up my mind about who accomplished more but Philip II is definitely underappreciated. I recommend anyone traveling to Greece to visit his tomb near Vergina. ***
I second that recommendation!
Another brilliant episode. For me it's got to be Alexander over Phillip, not only under contemporary circumstances but Alexander's influence throughout the last 2000 years to me is an achievement in itself, and puts him far above Phillip. ***
Sounds like you are in a minority here. I must admit that I tend to agree with you.
Great seeing you Lantern Jack after only listening for so long on your podcast. Fantastic episode too. I enjoy Mr. Goldsworthy’s books, especially the fictional Vindolanda series. Here, I think Alexander eclipses his father once again.***
Thanks, Randy, for your support!
Let's not forget someone who worked for Philip II, who was incredibly impactful to history. Philip's siege engineer (and overall engineer) Polyidus has been credited for the first ever torsion catapult, and the Hellene's first use of massive siege towers. Polyidus' student Diades of Pella took over the engineering reins under Alexander.
Wonderful podcast! I think Alexander did more with his life. Military innovation and state craft, these are difficult to measure and Philip was extraordinary. But your esteemed guest made a keen and relevant remark. Archaeology shows the sorta zoomed out time scale vs written history’s minutiae. With a broader scope in mind, I can think of no greater intersectional node than Alexander the Great. So if I may consider his “accomplishments” to include the impact he had on the world, from hi art to trade routes, then no one accomplished more than Alexander. But let me add, Alexander did stand on some gigantic shoulders ***
Nathaniel, you offer an insightful and balanced take. I can't argue with that! Thanks for listening.
Just listened to the podcast 👌, thanks and keep up the good work! I think I rate Phillip over Alexander because his achievements appear to arise from more challenging circumstances. * * *
Thanks, Shaun, and good point!
Phillip created the instrument with which Alexander could use to build his legacy. So Phillip being the greater ruler in my opinion considering what he started with to how he left Macedon at his death. I would say it’s poetic that Alexander fulfilled his father’s legacy and conquered the Persian empire… but he also likely had a hand in/knew of the plot to assassinate his father so maybe not so romantic… loved the episode! ***
Lovely interview! Adrian’s book sounds really interesting…
It is! I read it from cover to cover and it held my attention the whole time.
Love the theme, great video
Oh hey man. Was listening to your latest podcast like always, loved it of course. Your last episode on Philip might be your best. Anyways, you have a UA-cam channel!!! Good luck bro. 🤜🤛 Like, commented and subscribed.
Thanks, bro! Glad you enjoyed it ;)
I love the podcast! Thank you for your hard work!
Well done
I wish I could sound sophisticated like Prof Adrian.
Awesome Podcast!***
It's a bizarre experience to hear such a familiar voice out of a face that I've never seen! Love the video format!
I think that all things considered, Philip was way more impressive in that he actually made a conquering machine out of a backwater. Philip invented the car, Alexander won a great race with it and then crashed and died. ***
Haha, yea, listeners are often surprised when they first see me - not sure what to make of that ;P Thanks for your comment. I love the car metaphor.
A popular, if unoriginal analogy. Also, a somewhat innacurate one too. Philip did a lot more than just invent a car. He won (and lost) a few races himself. But it was he who got in a wreck and died, and it was Alexander who rebuilt it and heavily changed and modified it for a multitude of new courses, all of which he won. I simply don't understand what do you mean by his crashing it...
Love your content Jack! ***
Thanks, Chris!
Great video - been loving these interviews. Definitely hope to see some more on the Peloponnesian War at some point!
Great interview! I really enjoyed the discussion and I think that Alexander accomplished more in total, although it would not have been possible without Philips foundation. * * *
A balanced assessment!
I loved Adrian's push back against this trend to downplay the great men of history as well as his point against the idea of viewing history as a series of inevitable events. As far as the book, what can I say? I own it and would highly recommend it too any fan of the time period.
I didn't realize how much I didn't know about Philip until I read this book, and it's a shame that he gets so little of the credit, it's easy to understand why of course, because Alexander is so captivating a figure that he overshadows everyone else around him even before he becomes the ruler of Macedon.
Whether or not you see Alexander as a hero or villain? well I find that the truth of the matter is, that hero is perhaps not the right word to use for great men of history, because it portrays an inaccurate view of mans nature, no man is wholly good or evil in my view and a great man must be capable of both great cruelty and great compassion and we see this in men like Alexander.
He did destroy and kill many people in many different parts of the ancient world, but we also know that he showed mercy and forgiveness to many people as well. Real life is not a comic book or a movie, the ideal hero from that perspective does not exist.
All of that without even considering the personal beliefs through which each individual or group views the world, such as religion and political ideology, to a Christian Alexander probably looks like a monster, to a Pagan Alexander may very well be a hero in the classical sense.
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
If sources are limited on "world conquering" Alexander, imagine how much we must surmise to comprehend, say, the world of the Mycenaeans or Hittites!
Alexander didn't do everything in Philip's book. He rarely took Parmenio's advice who was Phillip's most trusted general. He perfected the cavalry and the phalanx basically one upping his father. He reconstructs his army to fight Bactrian guerrillas, he masterfully deceives. Undoubtedly Philip is underrated due to the fame of his son. But Alexander himself is a bit underrated as well. There is a reason that Hannibal, Caesar, Pompey, Augustus, and even Napoleon modeled themselves after Alexander... He had quite some skills.
Excellent analysis.
No comment on Alexander fulfilling the archetype of the dying god, the young man who attains great glory but is sacrificed young to the Mother Goddess?
Having listened to the points presented in this interview, I may be leaning toward Philip being the greater. I never realized how much groundwork he had laid. My favorite comparison of the whole interview was that equating Macedon's actual rise to that of Belgium taking over the world. Always a great listen. ***
Haha, yea that was a funny moment. Thanks for listening and for sharing your thoughts.
Indeed. But we must bear in mind that Phillip just wanted to free the ionian greeks maybe win Persia partly or wholely but he had more retrictes horizons than Alexander. Alexander was more visionary a genius of his age and many years ahead of his time as a military leader and a ruler. He wanted to melt civilisations he conquered with the greek and he didnt have the restricted greek perception of asians as barbarians in everything. He pretty much saw them as equals and that can be proved on how he organised and but cities and esteblished the first administrations. And of course we can see that in the mutinies from his army that couldnt understand why they had to share the gains of their win with the barbarians, and rule together in many cases in the satrapies.. Without Philip of course there is no Alexander. He cemented the campaign but everything else goes to Alexanders genius. A Mozart of his time as a ruler.
@@haroldalexander7268 good analysis, sounds like you've researched far beyond the interview. I am not certain, though, that Alexander believed that conquered people were his equal, at least sincerely.
@@alecbundy527 No he didn't think that of course. Not equals. But as time went by, his mindset changed concerning the so called barbarians as they were known in the greek world. It changed for the better as time went by in contrast to the classic Macedonian and greek perception of the soldiers etc who thought of them as barbarians and only that.
@@alecbundy527 EVERY GOOD ! ! ! Tatjana from MAKEDONIJA
Great guest
Great episode!
I’d say Alexander accomplished more in absolute terms, but not in relative ones. I guess fame and legend really values more the first. ***
Great podcast.
I’ve read In the Name of Rome by AG. He’s done some great work. I’m looking forward to Vindolanda.
Weird how that goes...
Yesterday I'm listening to this great discussion about who exceeds Alexander. This morning read this in Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan and
"In the late 1230s, after extraordinary successes in Central Asia masterminded by Ögödei, who became Great Khan, or supreme leader, soon after his father’s death, the Mongols launched one of the most stunning attacks in the history of warfare, mounting a campaign that surpassed even that of Alexander the Great." ***
So I guess I found another contender 😄
Yup. According to the numbers I can find, Genghis Khan is the only person to have surpassed Alexander by the size of his conquests.
@@LanternJack 😄 wasn't expecting a reply. Thanks man. Keep up the great work, love the podcast. 👏👏
@@LanternJack Agreed! imo, Genghis Khan was Philip II and Alexander rolled into one, plus he lived to hold onto, (re)organize and rule a humongous empire, and pass it on to his descendants. Kublai Khan was his grandson I think...Granted, some 1.5k years after Philip and Alexander.
The secret history of the Mongols also had a bit in it that might have been repeated from Greek history: GK's mother, Hoelun, famously bared her chest to make her point just like Olympias did. Not a coincidence methinks...
The Mongol army could move very fast as well, as fast as 600km/day according to some scholars (John Man). Imo they could do so as they were practically living on their horses, but also eating a ketogenic hunter/gatherer diet that enabled them to be sharp fighters while eating only once a day, or less.
"The Mongol Empire .....was four times as large as the empire of Alexander the Great and twice as the Roman Empire" , according to the thesis of Argyroula Balasa...
Alexander was a worthy and arguably superior heir to a great king. He owes everything to Philip but it is arguable that Philip could not have achieved what Alexander did.
Alexander has the story of Achilles but we know he’s real.
Alexander ended up as a legend for all history in 30-something years. Phillip paved the way but Alexander may have achieved more than any other human in history respectively
Goldsworthy is truly a western gem
He didn't die before problems start, he was the only guy to beat the Afghan warriors in skirmish strange warfare, not straight battle. Which would be his game. And still conquered the middle terrain, with their kings giving Alex to their sons as name to prove worthy of kingship.
Thanks for the interview. Great listening. It depends on what you mean by 'achieve' but certainly Alexander reaches Herculean like status through his achievements. So I think Alexander takes the cake ***
Alexander the Great was the equivalent of a rock star. He's kind of like an ancient Jim Morrison.
Nice! Alexander needed Philip but Philip made it all possible...
As Alxeander died young we just do not know what he might have done later though. Not a lazy guy that Alexander.
The sheer scope of Alexander's conquests shows he "accomplished more" but it's still tough to claim he was better at building and leading. He died before he could consolidate his power and establish structure to his empire. The interview was great, but I'm really gonna need to read the book for a clearer picture. * * *
So Alexander was the James Dean of the ancient world. Alexander is the hero (in the ancient sense) but Phillip is more compelling because his story is more culturally obscure vis a vis his son. ***
Haha! what a great analogy!
Compared to where they started from, Philip accomplished more than Alexander. He not only unified Macedonia, created a standing, preeminent army, expanded his influence in the north, and forged diplomatic ties throughout the Greek and non-Greek world, he also initiated the campaign against Persia, which his son would carry through the completion. As many have said before, without Philip there would have been no Alexander. ***
I'm honestly surprised by all the votes for Philip, but you make a strong case!
Most of the things that you've listed were undone upon Philip's death and had to be restarted, in some case from scratch, of course.
Excellent episode. As for your question, that is a tough one! As was mentioned in your show, Philip had a more well-rounded set of skills, including social skills, diplomacy, military innovation. On the other hand, Alexander was one of the few military geniuses in history, and conquered a great empire. On balance, I'd have to give the accolade to Philip. You could say we admire Philip for his "nous" and Alexander for his "thumos". ***
***
'***
I don't think you give enough credit to Alexander in terms of social skill, diplomacy and esp military innovation. Plenty of examples for all even in the primaries...
Personally...
I think that Philip and Alexander were both "Great" each in their own right.
But can you imagine if Philip had survived another 10 or 20 years and had
been with Alexander on his (or thier) conquests across Persia and into Asia??
There would have been no stopping them.
Well, there was no stopping of Alexander...
but I can only imagine how much futher those fierce Lions of Macedon
would gone with Philip and Alexander both at the helm.
Surely, the would have inspired the troops to drive deeper into India and maybe even into China...
and / or... to turn back westward into Europe and they easily would have taken the city-states
of Rome and Carthage... and who knows how much further they would have gone.
Great interview. I gotta go with Philip. He bootstrapped himself to the top, revolutionized seige warfare and put Macedonia on the map ***.
Fair points! Thanks for listening :)
Just to be pedantic, Philip had to abandon at least two sieges for good; Alexander, during his forced blitzkrieg through Asia Minor, altogether bypassed a number of defiant places. Of course, they were still submitted one way or another in his absence.
Great podcast, I think it is Philip, he was coming from a much lower base and was around a lot longer ***
Thanks Jerry!
Wonderful interview! I would say Philip accomplished more. He made all subsequent accomplishments possible! In light of this interview, I’m inclined to reread what Herodotus and Thucydides wrote about pre-Philip II Macedon.***
Thanks, Daniel! Yea, there's some interesting stories especially in Herodotus about the Macedonians ;)
@@LanternJack I WISH YOU EVERY GOOD ! ! ! Tatjana
I think Alexander was quite literally addicted to combat. I think he thought it was the most fun thing to do, gave him a buzz like no other, and really frankly wasn’t too interested in the monotony of ruling a kingdom
A very interesting discussion. I don't think I've appreciated just how much of a foundation Philip had built for Alexander, I guess I just assumed he was only really of note for being the father of Alexander. I think I would still say Alexander accomplished more, just because of the huge amount of territory conquered and in so short a time, and perhaps because he is better remembered and has had more of an impact on culture/stories/myths ever since. Without the subsequent achievements of Alexander would many people have even heard of Philip. * * *
Thank you, Will. Glad you enjoyed the discussion, and thanks for sharing your perspective!
I want a book!
Can Adrian explained to me how does a king go to war when u have enemies within and without. To reach India, its 5-7000km away. How long is the supply chain gonna be? Who is maintaining the supply chain so that enemies dont revolt? How many soldiers do Alexander have to move that far?
I see Alexander the Great as Frederick the Great. And Philip as Frederick’s dad. Both fathers built the modern state and military.
Great interview. I think Philip had the greater movement from his start. He appears to be more leadership oriented and in achievement. ***
Still Alex is the genius with the uncompromising approach. There are details that portray.
Once scouters showed enemy army found sleeping. With opportunity to massacre enemy army during the night , with Alex saying no, in ierse to only win with straight competition.
@@innosanto at Gaugamela? Excellent PR, but there are more pragmatic reasons for this, I believe.
Alexander ranged so far, and accomplished so much **
true dat
One might compare Simon De Bolivar to Alexander, at least in terms of the amount of real estate they each conquered
My take is that they wouldn’t have been recognized for greatness without eachother. Not many would even know of Philip without Alexanders feats having stemmed from his reforms of Macedonia and its army. Likewise Alexander wouldn’t have gotten to where he did without the jumpstart he inherented from Philip. Philip opened up the way to attacking Persia and have a chance to beat Theo. Alexander executed it and went far much further than Philip could’ve imagined, nor would’ve gone. Like said, Alexander was a force of nature that didn’t and wouldn’t have stopped conquerring.
Apples to Oranges. I think Phil likely could've conquered Persia with his reforms, but Al as a strategist and general was sublime, and unmatched at improvising, almost at the expense of all other things in his life, Phil was by far the better statesman.
Uniting the warring Greeks under one ruler**hegemon** may have been harder than conquering an ailing Achaemenid empire 🤪
“May”?!
Let’s rock
I really enjoyed the discussion about the role of individuals vs the wider social context in the world. On a minor note, it's worth pointing out with regard to the Russian warlord in the 11th century being meaningless because the Mongols are coming, the Mongols might not necessarily have come. Chinggis Khan could have very easily died before he grew up to become the great conqueror. He very nearly didn't survive childhood. Of course someone else potentially could have united the Mongol tribes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would have, or that even having done so they would have done the same things as Chinggis and his family did. Maybe they would have conquered China and Korea but never gone west. Who knows? Personally, I'm a communist, a Marxist, and people tend to assume that Marxists claim that all of history is inevitable, individuals don't matter at all, but that's not really necessarily the case. Of course you do have people like that, not only among Marxists of course, but if someone is using historical materialism correctly, it's more like, the wider social conditions kind of set the limits of what is possible. But then human beings are the ones who act within those possibilities. And there are so many things that can go into that, and change the way history could turn out. Individuals don't change the world alone. Neither do the wider social forces. Rather it's an interaction between the two. And sometimes one force wins when it could have lost, another lost when it could have won, and history turns out differently. If Hannibal had destroyed the city of Rome (which, who knows if that was even his goal), the world WOULD have turned out very differently, because the Roman Empire was such a defining force later on, which did so much to shape the world as it has become, for better or worse. It's difficult to imagine a world where Carthage became the dominant power, but that world COULD have existed. Of course, you also have to look at the social forces there, the Carthaginians had a much smaller population than Rome did, a lot less manpower, different ideas of war and what constituted victory. What Hannibal did was pretty exceptional, and he was seriously pushing against the boundaries of what was possible within the material conditions (you can tell because none of the other Carthaginians were achieving much of anything in the Second Punic War, it was basically all Hannibal and his army). But he could have won, and the world would have turned out differently. Material conditions set the stage, but then human beings are the ones who act out the play and decide what happens with it.
Ghengis khan and his son seem like a great comparison to Philip and Alexander
"I think he was a talented individual"...
... Man hahaha .. there is not question , very talented individual.
Fantastic interview. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Deciding on whether the father or son did more is a moot point as each achieved more than anyone could have expected or dreamed. Each did something novel and incomparable. Thanks again ***
Thank *you* for watching
It would appear that Alexander's strategy towards the places he conquered was that he would leave the already-powers-that-be in these various places in power to govern as that had been... so long as they played ball, paid tribute and didn't give him any trouble.
Not incorrect but there is one substantial difference: he substantially curbed the powers of the satraps to make his domain much more centralized than under prior rulers.
Hello, Jack like your podcast. I think Philip is greater then Alexander for he turns the backwater kingdom into a regional power, Alexander turns it into a superpower. I think there's some similarity between Philip and Alexander and Frederick William and Frederick the great of Prussia. The fathers build the tools for the son to conquer. ***
Very interesting idea - thanks for sharing!
They ask who else in history might be 'like Alexander' and Napoleon is mentioned but what about Genghis Khan, he is 'most like Alexander, and yet others could be added to the list, and it would be how they are like Alexander and how are they not. Alexander is not just a conqueror he is an innovator of cosmopolis, the idea of transforming society into what today we could call a cosmopolis, a place where multiculturalism is strong, but with a common bond of a ruling culture that respects true diversity, not the fake diversity we see today.
Genghis Khan had that same attitude that Alexander had where he valued expertise, loyalty, innovation, over tradition, tribal and clan loyalty alone.
As to could Alexander be a statesman and rule like Philip. Yes, Alexander does make some brash decisions, but learns from them, like Philip went through a similar learning process to gain the necessary choices and experiences that shaped his later insight as a statesman, and how and what he values. Alexander had that same sense, and had his own version of that sense of seeking what truly held value in things like creativity, and transforming society. So once he was master of Asia, he would have probably created, like the United States, a single Hellenistic society like we have American Society, from coast to coast, but in Alexanders resulting empire.
Plus, like the Romans, once he discovered China existed, realistically, if he eventually fought a second campaign to successfully subdue India, and since someone who was inspired by Alexander later did do just that, if such a person worked within Alexanders forces that would have most likely happened, with that China would be found and we'd have gotten stories of how the West invaded the Far East at some point, the stuff of epic cinema.
But with Alexander died that dream.
Jimi Hendrix was only 27.
Genghis Kan and Kublai Kan.