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! ***.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 TH-cam channel!!! Good luck bro. 🤜🤛 Like, commented and subscribed.
@@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!***
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
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. ***
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.
History is great, Jimi Hendrix is a member of the 27 club. Alexander was murdered by his own men. Did myself a huge favor, I began to read histories written by Persians, not Alexander worshipping western authors. Great big differences in viewpoint. Much greater reporting of the slaughters and other general malfeasance.
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?
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.
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.
The comparison to Julius Caesar is tone deaf,Caesar was the leader of a political party so he in deed had many plans and reforms some he had the time to implement and others he didn't cause they murdered him,it wasn't just about never ending conquest like with Alexander,also Caesar clearly had an idea for the future after his death all laid out in his infamous will where he designs his successor Octavian unlike Alexander who even on his death bed because of his egomania just would not name his clear successor,silly man.
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.
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.
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 TH-cam channel.
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. * * *
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 ***
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. * * *
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.***
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.
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! ***
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.
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 ***
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...
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!
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.
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. ***
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. ***
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
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 ***
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.
57:43 Awful question and worse reply. 1. Death and destruction of ‘communities’ was absolutely common throughout the known and prolly unknown world, Alexander just happened to be the first European to conquer the middle east. So stop apologizing for his ‘crimes’ as they were par for course and being committed by people of color against other people of color and against europeans prior. 2. Alexander was loved as he did not just come in and kill everyone and put them in slavery ( not invented by europe or America) and in fact often co-opted local elite and customs. Just an awful question and fumbled answer you two. Otherwise great discussion. Thank you! 🙏💯
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.
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. ***
THEY talk and talk about Alexander with very little on the rise of Philip and the myriad things he did militarily to first of all :get Macedo0nia unified and then to get the rest of Greece under his thumb . This is so obvious to ANYONE who has read about Philip . Without his military innovations and military formations , brilliant statecraft Alexander would have gone NO WHERE . READ ABOUT PHILIP . You will find out !!!
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 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.
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.
Philip lives another 10 yrs, no Alexander ‘the great’ Philip, with another 10 yrs, establishes not occupied provinces but something akin a Macedonian empire, administered with the same innovation he had for warfare. Again, what do you do with Alexander? As for Alexander, his relentless just keep the assault going, is poor demographics- where do you replace your fallen men? Sooner or later reality would have set in, someone has to breed the next generation of soldiers for Alexander to March into oblivion … even Napoleon ran out of ‘men’ after his mindless Russian campaign (against the advice of all his Marshals) and found himself with 15 yr olds at Waterloo. Alexander wouldn’t even have had that.
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.
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...
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?
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.
phillip transformed an entire way of life. he built a country from nothing into an empire. he lost some battles but thats what happens when youre creating something. ups and downs. Alexander was amazing but he inherited thee greatest fighting force in the world at the time
This guy is a terrible interviewer. He invites on some of the leading experts of ancient history, then devotes most of the time to voicing his own opinions. Why do that? He could spend an hour telling us his ideas any time but he only has a very finite time to enquire about the opinions of the expert guests who join him.
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. ***
I've always held the belief that each man was the perfect type for the job and neither could have accomplished what the other did. Philip was a great strategist and diplomat but not as brilliant a tactician it seems like. Whereas Alexander appears to have been the opposite - unbeatable in battle but not with the strategic depth of his father. I guess I must lean towards Philip in the end :-) ***
Is there another example of a Phillip? Yes! Chingis Khan! Just like Phillip, he was from nowhere and a captive of a neighboring tribe. Ok, he didn't have an Epaminondas to learn tactics from, but they both went from obscurity to power. His son(s) went on to conquer the world!
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.
I agree with this English guy. Result ooks inevitable after someone makes the work. Persia was not weak only people who dont read ,say that. they had just won / beat down revolts the Greek cities of Ionia completely and succrsfully, 50 years before. And in Some Aegean islands, increased its power and consolidation and beat after years the Egyptian revolt succrsfully after long time and was in great point. The only issue was the political instability caused at those years after the death of a very succeful Persian king. But this is not enough as reason , to explain, the instability caused by Phillip assassination was huge, huge, all Greek cities wanted to regain the status quo of before, the Illyrians and Balkans wanted same, and even within Macedon the many generals and other powers I'm the kingdom found opportunity. And Alexander completed fastly and effectively so much at the kingdom and with Greek states, very well, and within the army and aristocrats very well. Even before the Balkan cpaign which also very well. And both already before the start of big 10-11 year campaign.
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...
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
Oh this is the same interview I just heard. I think I prefer this format actually.
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...
Alexander has the story of Achilles but we know he’s real.
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.
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.
Uniting the warring Greeks under one ruler**hegemon** may have been harder than conquering an ailing Achaemenid empire 🤪
“May”?!
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 TH-cam channel!!! Good luck bro. 🤜🤛 Like, commented and subscribed.
Thanks, bro! Glad you enjoyed it ;)
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!***
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
Genghis Kan and Kublai Kan.
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!
One might compare Simon De Bolivar to Alexander, at least in terms of the amount of real estate they each conquered
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.
History is great, Jimi Hendrix is a member of the 27 club.
Alexander was murdered by his own men.
Did myself a huge favor, I began to read histories written by Persians, not Alexander worshipping western authors. Great big differences in viewpoint. Much greater reporting of the slaughters and other general malfeasance.
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?
I see Alexander the Great as Frederick the Great. And Philip as Frederick’s dad. Both fathers built the modern state and military.
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 the Great was the equivalent of a rock star. He's kind of like an ancient Jim Morrison.
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.
The comparison to Julius Caesar is tone deaf,Caesar was the leader of a political party so he in deed had many plans and reforms some he had the time to implement and others he didn't cause they murdered him,it wasn't just about never ending conquest like with Alexander,also Caesar clearly had an idea for the future after his death all laid out in his infamous will where he designs his successor Octavian unlike Alexander who even on his death bed because of his egomania just would not name his clear successor,silly man.
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.
Ghengis khan and his son seem like a great comparison to Philip and Alexander
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.
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 TH-cam channel.
Thanks very much, A! Glad you enjoyed it.
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!
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 ***
If sources are limited on "world conquering" Alexander, imagine how much we must surmise to comprehend, say, the world of the Mycenaeans or Hittites!
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!
Jimi Hendrix was only 27.
Perfect topic for Father's day weekend!***
I hadn't thought of that, but you're so right!
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!
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.
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! ***
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.
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.
Alexander ranged so far, and accomplished so much **
true dat
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...
Ancient Glory of Macedonia Still Shines like the 16 Ray☀☀☀ Macedonian Sun. Makedonia very soon United!!!☀Pirin + Vardar + Belomore!!
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!
These are really good questions.
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!
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. ***
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.
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
great interview and amazing historian & author.
Looking forward to getting my hands on a copy of this book soon.
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.
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.
57:43 Awful question and worse reply. 1. Death and destruction of ‘communities’ was absolutely common throughout the known and prolly unknown world, Alexander just happened to be the first European to conquer the middle east.
So stop apologizing for his ‘crimes’ as they were par for course and being committed by people of color against other people of color and against europeans prior.
2. Alexander was loved as he did not just come in and kill everyone and put them in slavery ( not invented by europe or America) and in fact often co-opted local elite and customs.
Just an awful question and fumbled answer you two.
Otherwise great discussion. Thank you! 🙏💯
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.
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.
THEY talk and talk about Alexander with very little on the rise of Philip and the myriad things he did militarily to first of all :get Macedo0nia unified and then to get the rest of Greece under his thumb . This is so obvious to ANYONE who has read about Philip . Without his military innovations and military formations , brilliant statecraft Alexander would have gone NO WHERE . READ ABOUT PHILIP . You will find out !!!
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.
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.
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.
Philip lives another 10 yrs, no Alexander ‘the great’
Philip, with another 10 yrs, establishes not occupied provinces but something akin a Macedonian empire, administered with the same innovation he had for warfare. Again, what do you do with Alexander?
As for Alexander, his relentless just keep the assault going, is poor demographics- where do you replace your fallen men? Sooner or later reality would have set in, someone has to breed the next generation of soldiers for Alexander to March into oblivion … even Napoleon ran out of ‘men’ after his mindless Russian campaign (against the advice of all his Marshals) and found himself with 15 yr olds at Waterloo. Alexander wouldn’t even have had that.
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.
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...
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 admire Philip more and think he accomplished more as a person. But Alexander accomplished more as a ruler, certainly ***
Fair point!
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.
Alexander the great would have been Alexander the pretty good without his fathers accomplishments.
Philip 2nd was a leader and would have become a Genghis Khan if he had lived.Alexander would have been an Ogedei figure.
I saw a facial reconstruction of Phillip 2 He looked like thug with one eye..not surprisingly. 18:18
I wish I could sound sophisticated like Prof Adrian.
Few give credit to anyone but Alex? Who do you think you are, Black Kleitus?
phillip transformed an entire way of life. he built a country from nothing into an empire. he lost some battles but thats what happens when youre creating something. ups and downs. Alexander was amazing but he inherited thee greatest fighting force in the world at the time
Genghis Khan also falls into the category of the Zulu king and Philip.
Philip of Macedon is greater. The kid was over keen.
This guy is a terrible interviewer. He invites on some of the leading experts of ancient history, then devotes most of the time to voicing his own opinions.
Why do that? He could spend an hour telling us his ideas any time but he only has a very finite time to enquire about the opinions of the expert guests who join him.
"I think he was a talented individual"...
... Man hahaha .. there is not question , very talented individual.
Love this podcast, glad it's now on YT!
It's good to be on this platform!
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!
I've always held the belief that each man was the perfect type for the job and neither could have accomplished what the other did. Philip was a great strategist and diplomat but not as brilliant a tactician it seems like. Whereas Alexander appears to have been the opposite - unbeatable in battle but not with the strategic depth of his father. I guess I must lean towards Philip in the end :-) ***
Thank you, Christian! I'm actually surprised at the number of votes for Philip. But you make a compelling case!
@@LanternJack it's kind of apples and oranges perhaps isn't it 🙂 I forgot to say thanks for a great podcast and a well spoken guest!
Could you elaborate on how Philip was superior strategically? Admittedly, I disagree, but still would love to hear further explanation.
Also, in terms of diplomacy, Philip committed at least one major blunder. Could the same be said about Alexander?
I think if there’s anyone who could be compared to Alexander the Great it would be Umar ibn Al Khattab
...Russia still is on the fringes of the civilized world.
he dies before he gets old ... does the theory alexander was poisoned and the death of his best buddy of a similar "disease" was just the test?
I am curious to see what Adrian thinks was the cause of Alexander’s death
Is there another example of a Phillip? Yes! Chingis Khan! Just like Phillip, he was from nowhere and a captive of a neighboring tribe. Ok, he didn't have an Epaminondas to learn tactics from, but they both went from obscurity to power. His son(s) went on to conquer the world!
Nice parallel!
I'll take Philip. Without a foundation no structure is buildable. ***
*** ***
*** *** *** ***
***
so hard to post 3 stars!
*** *** ***
haha, noted!
Hendrix died at the age of 27.
Great podcast, I think it is Philip, he was coming from a much lower base and was around a lot longer ***
Thanks Jerry!
What a great interview. Goldsworthy is just as engaging to listen as to read. Kudos.
Thank you, Sean!
its a counterreaction to the persian empire in mny ways
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!
why is he dressed like liquid chris
Excited about this new visual component to your discussions.
😎
Love the theme, great video
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.
Great interview!
I agree with this English guy.
Result ooks inevitable after someone makes the work.
Persia was not weak only people who dont read ,say that. they had just won / beat down revolts the Greek cities of Ionia completely and succrsfully, 50 years before. And in Some Aegean islands, increased its power and consolidation and beat after years the Egyptian revolt succrsfully after long time and was in great point. The only issue was the political instability caused at those years after the death of a very succeful Persian king.
But this is not enough as reason , to explain, the instability caused by Phillip assassination was huge, huge, all Greek cities wanted to regain the status quo of before, the Illyrians and Balkans wanted same, and even within Macedon the many generals and other powers I'm the kingdom found opportunity.
And Alexander completed fastly and effectively so much at the kingdom and with Greek states, very well, and within the army and aristocrats very well. Even before the Balkan cpaign which also very well. And both already before the start of big 10-11 year campaign.
All those Loeb's ...mmmmmm.....
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...
Love the new format!