The Role of Philip II in the Success of Alexander the Great

This essay evaluates the role of Philip II in the success of Alexander the Great and compares their greatness. It discusses the strengths of the Macedonian army, the military vision of Philip II, and the innovation and creation that led to their victories.

Running Head: ANCIENT HISTORY
ANCIENT HISTORY
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1ANCIENT HISTORY
Alexander was undoubtedly the most famous and invincible emperor in Greece who
became popular and a cult image in the history of prowess and fierce expansion of Greek empire
across the world. It is true that the Alexander was a great warrior with his unique war strategy
and leadership quality. However, a pertinent question erects regarding the backdrop of
Alexander’s success. Many scholarly articles claimed that one of the major reason behind the
rise of Alexander as the supreme power of his times was his father Philip II. As a matter of fact,
the presence of King Philip II in the history of Macedonia is so intense that some of the empirical
evidences placed Philip II in the first place for Macedonian victory and later success1. Therefore,
this essay is going to evaluate and compare the greatness of both Philip II and Alexander and
willing to draw a conclusion based on the augments within the essay.
In this regard, at first it is important to evaluate the strengths and specific measures of the
invincible Macedonian army that was the backbone of the power of Alexander. From the
research of Gabriel it can be confirmed that the proficiency and strength of the Macedonian army
was relied on its use of advanced weapons and battle equipment2. The Greek army was divided
into two distinct forms. The first is associated with the hoplites or the Greek infantrymen with
body armour and helmets. The other was the Cavalry unit that was generally used to outflank the
rivals. A social classification can be identified in the traditional Greek army where the hoplites
were farmers and pastures and the cavalrymen were belonged to the Greek aristocracy.
Therefore, it was King Philip II who sensed the need for a change in the structure of the military
1 Buckler, John. "Demosthenes and Aeschines." Demosthenes. Routledge, 2002. 128-172.
2 Gabriel, Richard A. Philip II of Macedonia: greater than Alexander. Potomac Books, Inc., 2010.

2ANCIENT HISTORY
unit. As a result of that it was obvious that a number of changes had been made by Philip II in
order to bring more efficacy into the Macedonian army and made it unbeatable3.
In the technological spectrum, the introduction of 14 to 18 foot long pikes provided a
great advantage to the hoplites to fight with the barbarians and the other rivals. It is associated
with the practice of developing a specialised infantrymen in the name of Pezhetairoi who got the
expertise in pikes and shields. In fact, from the research of Olbrycht it can be stated that Philip II
was highly moved by the expertise and professionalism of the army and his warrior mind tried to
implement rigours training and balance within the strength of the army4. In the words of Gabriel,
“Philip did not have the time to train new troops in this (Phalanx) complex formation…”5.
Therefore, it took great care of the peasants and famers who were entitled for the infantry.
Increase their wages was also an important fact for Philip II that provided a boost to the
development of a mighty army of Macedonia.
From the perspective of leadership and vision, it can be stated that Philip was the first
person to envisage the possibility of developing a unified empire beyond the geographic barriers
of Greece. Gabriel articulated, “Philip was a great national king who fashioned the first national
territorial state in Europe”6. Besides the reconstruction of a great army characterised with
advanced military tactics and equipment, Philip II also succeeded to enlarge, urbanise and
develop the Macedonian natural and human resources that led the country to the pinnacle of
prosperity. Based on this understanding, it can be stated that the Persian victory of Alexander
3 Fredricksmeyer, Ernst A. "On the final aims of Philip II." Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian
Heritage (1982): 85-98.
4 Olbrycht, Marek Jan. "Macedonia and Persia." A companion to ancient Macedonia (2010): 342-69.
5 Gabriel, Richard A. Philip II of Macedonia: greater than Alexander. Potomac Books, Inc., 2010.
6 Gabriel, Richard A. Philip II of Macedonia: greater than Alexander. Potomac Books, Inc., 2010.

3ANCIENT HISTORY
was a glorious event in the history of Macedonia but the strength and unity of the army was the
gift of farsightedness and military mind-set of Philip II. For this, Philip II had to make a peace
with other Greek States. Without the guarantee of peace, it was not possible for Alexander to get
confidence to attack Persia7. As a matter of fact, crossing the ocean was not so easy for
Alexander. The Persian retaliation also cost huge for Alexander and without the Athenian
support it was negative to defend the Persian attack successfully. The intervention into the heart
of Asia was also a crucial part for Alexander but it was not possible unless Philip II previously
secured Thrace and Chersonese through military expedition.
On the other hand, the difference in aims between Alexander and Philip II is also a
crucial part in this regard that can define the role and contribution of Philip II for the success of
great conqueror Alexander. “Alexander was a youthful conqueror” who wanted to crush the
entire world through his military power and over aspiration8. In fact, the journey of Alexander
can be identified in the form of a titanic ambition to change the course of history. On the
contrary, Philip II was more like a prudent and cautious man with profound knowledge in the
Macedonian national policy. Philip II did not want to expand the territorial expansion of Greek
empire rather keeping in check the Persian power to Asia Minor. Moreover, at the battle of
Chaeronea Philip portrayed the superiority of the Greek army over the Persian rivals9. The
Persian army was fragmented and fractured into a number of infantry with personal interests. As
a matter of fact, the overdependence on the cavalry created huge problem for the Persian army
7 Squillace, Giuseppe. "Consensus Strategies under Phili p and Alexander." Philip II and Alexander the
Great (2010): 69.
8 Gattinoni, Franca Landucci. "Cassander and the Legacy of Philip II and Alexander III in Diodorus’
Library." Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives(2010): 113.
9 Heckel, Waldemar, ed. Who's who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire. John
Wiley & Sons, 2008.

4ANCIENT HISTORY
because there was no contingency plan that the military brilliance of Achaemenid kings were
ever envisioned. It was Philip II who realised the balance between the hoplites and the
cavalrymen. As a result of that the Macedonian army outplayed the Persian cavalry and infantry
to an intense manner. Based on this understanding, it can be argued that it was the superior
military vision of Philip II that facilitated a legacy that Alexander was also carried out in his
expeditions10.
Innovation and creation were the best part for the success of Philip II as he seen that to
face huge volume of Persian army, it would be essential for the Greek army to be more smart and
increase the damage of retaliation. The genius moves of Philip II can be seen from delivering
effective military strategy and tactics to the development of an effective combat killing machine
that was known as the Macedonian Army. Fierce and invincibility with the implementation of
advanced weaponry and siege machines made Philip II on the apex of his success because there
was no such power at that time that was so decisive and fatal like the Macedonian army. It was
King Philip II who first invented and integrated the engineering and siege machines in Greek
field army. High expertise and seasoned in battle for almost two decades were the key features
that an advantage for the Greek army in the battle with the Persians. For instance, the new
Macedonian torsion catapult gave the army of Alexander a strategic advantage in the battle
against the mighty Persians by battering down the city walls easily11. It was a great advantage
that Alexander learn and adapted from Philip II. The chief engineer in Philip’s army, Polyeidos
trained the chief engineer of Alexander, Diades about the different tactics and demolishing
10 Waldemar Heckel, and J. C. Yardley, Blackwell Alexander the Great : Historical Sources in Translation
Publishing Ltd., 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mqu/detail.action?
docID=233027. Created from mqu on 2019-05-11 06:37:12.
11 Ryder, T. T. B. "The diplomatic skills of Philip II." Ventures into Greek History (1994): 228-57.

5ANCIENT HISTORY
machines12. It seems a tradition and legacy was followed in course of developing an effective and
strong Greek army that could fight in any situation.
On the other hand, the campaigns of Alexander was strongly depended on the previous
success and efficacy of Philip II. For instance, the Commissariat corps was introduced by Philip
II that was resembled with the practice of establishing a science of logistics to Greek armies. It
helped Alexander’s army to march long distance and sustain themselves in the field for months.
Long projection of force and continuous supply of foods and weapons were highly required for
the army of Alexander in order to continue war at a stretch. It is true that the logistic supply
network of the Persian army was well trained and connected through log roads. However, in the
interior part where there was no support of the road connectivity for the Macedonian army,
Alexander had to rely on the logistics officer of his own army who got the training from Philip
II13.
The above discussion trying to establish a close link between the success of Alexander
and the innovation of Philip II. In this regard, the essay tries to project the role of Philip II on the
success of the victory and achievement of Alexander. There are two key aspect such as the
military skills or the technological development that Philip II was introduced and the second one
was related to his vision towards establishing peace and prosperity within Macedonia that later
on boosted Alexander to unleash the dream of conquering the world. The technological progress
and the skill development of the Macedonian army by the farsightedness of Philip II was also
backed up the military victory of Alexander. From that point of view, it can be concluded that
12 Worthington, Ian. Alexander the Great: a reader. Routledge, 2012.
13 Olbrycht, Marek Jan. "Macedonia and Persia." A companion to ancient Macedonia (2010): 342-69.

6ANCIENT HISTORY
without Philip II it would not be possible for Alexander to get an invincible army and over
expanded the Greek empire through his military conquests.

7ANCIENT HISTORY
Bibliography
Buckler, John. "Demosthenes and Aeschines." Demosthenes. Routledge, 2002. 128-172.
Fredricksmeyer, Ernst A. "On the final aims of Philip II." Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the
Macedonian Heritage (1982): 85-98.
Gabriel, Richard A. Philip II of Macedonia: greater than Alexander. Potomac Books, Inc., 2010.
Gattinoni, Franca Landucci. "Cassander and the Legacy of Philip II and Alexander III in
Diodorus’ Library." Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and
Afterlives(2010): 113.
Heckel, Waldemar, ed. Who's who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of
Alexander's Empire. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Olbrycht, Marek Jan. "Macedonia and Persia." A companion to ancient Macedonia (2010): 342-
69.
Ryder, T. T. B. "The diplomatic skills of Philip II." Ventures into Greek History (1994): 228-57.
Squillace, Giuseppe. "Consensus Strategies under Phili p and Alexander." Philip II and
Alexander the Great (2010): 69.
Waldemar Heckel, and J. C. Yardley, Blackwell Alexander the Great : Historical Sources in
Translation Publishing Ltd., 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mqu/detail.action?docID=233027. Created from mqu on
2019-05-11 06:37:12.
Worthington, Ian. Alexander the Great: a reader. Routledge, 2012.