History Essay: Examining the Roles of Alexander and Phillip of Greece

This essay examines the significant roles of Alexander the Great and his father, Phillip II of Macedon, in shaping the history of Greece. The essay argues that Phillip's influence was crucial for Alexander's success, highlighting Phillip's military expertise, his reorganization of the Macedonian army, and the education provided to Alexander, including the guidance of Aristotle. The essay discusses how Phillip prepared the way for Alexander by teaching him military skills and strategies. It also explores the complex relationship between father and son, including the different views on their interactions and the impact of Phillip's actions on Alexander's future conquests. The essay also considers the education Alexander received, and the importance of Phillip's strategic control of resources and territories, including the capture of Athens. Overall, the essay emphasizes Phillip's contributions to Alexander's success, including his military tactics, the creation of a professional army, and his role in uniting Greece, which allowed Alexander to conquer the world. The essay concludes by emphasizing the profound and lasting impact of Phillip on his son's life and legacy.

Running head: HISTORY
History
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HISTORY
The purpose of the following essay is to identify the roles of both Alexander and Phillip
in the history of Greece. Some historians have opined that the role of Philip was much more
important than that of Alexander in unifying the people of Greece. In this essay, the roles of both
these great leaders will be discussed. Basically Philip was the king of Macedon in Greece and he
was the father of Alexander the Great. This is why it is often said that Philip was a great king and
military commander of the country (Roisman 2002). His skills and characteristics proved to be
very much important that was seen within the character of Alexander in the future times.
Therefore, it is true that without the influence of Philip and show of his skills, Alexander would
have been nothing. He just paved the way by teaching Alexander all the military skills that were
needed for the ultimate success.
Thesis statement: The role of Phillip is crucial for the success of Alexander in the history of
Greece.
Philip II of Macedon reigned in Greece from 359 BCE to 336 BCE. Most time, Philip is
being remembered for being the father of Alexander but some critics have also said that his
contribution to Greece cannot be underestimated. He was one of the best military commanders in
his own right. SO, it must be said that his influence and charisma has been observed in the
supremacy of Alexander to some level (Roisman 2002). When Philip II became the king of
Greece, he had with him a very weak country. The military force of the country was not at all
effective and competent enough to success in battles (Roisman and Worthington 2010). On the
other hand, Philip II was a great military commander. So he had all the tools in him to train the
military forces of Macedonia in a way that they could conquer all other forces in the region. In
contrast to other states in Greece, Macedonia was a state that looked like a primitive state and
monarchy was the main process of ruling over there. His efforts turned that military force into a

2HISTORY
formidable military force. This is why it is beloved that Alexander had fantastic insight into the
matters of warfare. His determination and crafts in military skills could be noticed in Alexander
(Roisman and Worthington 2010). Therefore, it is quite true that Alexander would not have
existed without the presence and might of Philip II. The warfare strategies used by him led the
Greek force to win the battles. According to the historians, Alexander had been inspired by the
strategies led out by his father (Heckel and Tritle 2011).
The uniqueness of Alexander’s father Philip II lied in the facts that he could easily sum
up all the weaknesses of the armed forces of Greece. He was able to reorganize the armed forces
of Greece. This is how he gained much experience from the Sacred Band and then he was able to
implement those tactics into that of the Greek army forces. This organization of armed forces
was a skill that Alexander inherited from his father. Therefore, he went on to become one of the
most coveted military organizers of all time. So, critics have identified this ability of Philip II as
the most interesting one that could be transformed into Alexander (Heckel and Tritle 2011).
Apart from the traditional lands in the territory of Macedonia, he was able to include many other
new territories by winning battles in the regions like Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, Persia and some
parts of India. So, it is quite clear that he was a master in arranging the military forces. He got to
learn this craft from his father only (Carney and Ogden 2010). In this manner, he is completely
indebted to his father. However, some historians have also added to this fact that the relationship
between Philip and Alexander was very poor.
On the contrary, Alexander got the rank of General in the army of his father. There he got
to learn several new things. These things and strategies for warfare had been quite compelling for
him to win the future battles. Alexander was a great visionary just like his father. He was very
inspiring and he had great courage. All these things had been achieved by him from the might of

3HISTORY
his father Philip II only. The overall contribution for success of Alexander could be credited to
Philip II in many ways. There are other views in the relationship between Alexander and his
father (Carney and Ogden 2010). Some historians have also added the fact that Alexander had
been largely responsible for the murder of his father. There are some factors that could be
attributed to the Philip II. The first thing Philip II did for Alexander was his education by the
expert guidance of Aristotle. The army of Greece created by Philip II and later inherited by
Alexander. Historical critics are of the opinion that Alexander had lived in the shadow of his
father for a long time (Carney and Ogden 2010). All types of supremacy and courageous actions
in the lives of Alexander was just a reflection of his father’s attempts to unify Greece. Philip II
appointed Aristotle as the main tutor of Alexander. He taught him many subjects like science,
mathematics, politics, poetry, drama and many other things. Alexander had become one of the
most striking, competent, challenging and successful conquerors of the time. This is why his
credibility had been gained from his father in a large manner (Flower 2005).
The tactic brilliance of Alexander won him many battles but historians have opined that
all these victories were not possible without the visionary ideas of his father. Critics have also
exclaimed the fact that Alexander looted almost 22 metric tons of gold from Persia. It is indeed
very much evident because gold was the way of paying money to all the military personnel. In
his time of reigning, Philips had captured the state of Athens and Alexander later capitalized on
this (Flower 2005). So, it is quite apparent that the tactics of strategic control was learned by
Alexander from his father Philip only. The army of Greece was created by Philip by engaging
with all the local and tribal people of the country. Therefore, it was quite a strong and formidable
force. The division of the forces was done properly by Philip that was inherited by Alexander in
the future. He went on to make slight changes regarding tactics in that force and gained the upper

4HISTORY
hand on his enemies largely. All these divisions made by Philip namely cavalry, infantry and
others catered to the conquering of different regions by the great king Alexander (Flower 2005).
The famous Army of Alexander had been inherited by Philip II. This is why critics are of the
opinion that Alexander should have remain indebted to his father forever as he could conquer the
entire world as his father had set the stage for him.
The military tactics learned by Philip II from Epaminondas has been very much effective
in creating the armed forces. The aggressive approach of these people had also been followed by
Philip in this context (Worthington 2014). Another thing that was also a plus point for Alexander
to conquer the world was his father created the post of military personnel as their fixed job. The
military personnel were being paid for serving the military. This is why these personnel did not
have to shift their motive to other things like farming and harvesting. They were motivated by
Philip II himself. Therefore, it is quite clear that the success of Alexander could be credited
largely to his father only. Philip gave better opportunities to the soldiers for training. This
eventually benefitted Alexander in his conquers (Worthington 2014). The soldiers were mentally
bred by the aggressive approach and physically they were very fit as well. Alexander himself
was definitely a great and courageous man because of his triumphs but most of this credit goes to
his father only (Worthington 2014). Philip II taught Alexander how to pay respect to his
troopers. As a General of the Army, Alexander learned many ways of warfare from his father.
This is how his successes have depended largely on his father’s attributes.
On the concluding note, it can be said that the relationship between Philip II and his great
son Alexander had always been somewhat confusing. This is why many rumors had been there
regarding the influence over one another. Critics have definitely discussed thi smatter in the light
of the events that took place during the formation of the Greek army. The unification of the

5HISTORY
Greek army was a massive success for Philip II in his reign. Therefore, the strategies taught by
Philip II and education gained from Aristotle helped Alexander to rise amidst several difficulties.
The historians are surely of the opinion that Philip had a great influence on the life and success
of his son and his activities had shaped Alexander’s life in a large manner.

6HISTORY
References and Bibliography
Carney, E. and Ogden, D. eds., 2010. Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives
and Afterlives. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, J.R., 2014. Philip II and Macedonian imperialism (Vol. 489). Princeton University Press.
Flower, M.A., 2005. Alexander the Great. Historical sources in translation.
Heckel, W. and Tritle, L.A. eds., 2011. Alexander the Great: a new history. John Wiley & Sons.
Heckel, W., Howe, T. and Müller, S., 2017. „The Giver of the Bride, the Bridegroom, and the
Bride “. A Study of the Murder of Philip II and Its Aftermath. Ancient Historiography on War
and Empire, Oxford, pp.92-124.
Kalaitzi, M., 2016. Figured Tombstones from Macedonia, Fifth-first Century BC (p. 320).
Roisman, J. and Worthington, I. eds., 2010. A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Roisman, J. ed., 2002. Brill's companion to Alexander the Great. Brill.
Shipley, G., 2014. The Greek World after Alexander 323–30 BC. Routledge.
Shipley, G., 2014. The Greek World after Alexander 323–30 BC. Routledge.
Worthington, I., 2014. Alexander the Great: Man and God. Routledge.
Worthington, I., 2014. By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the
Macedonian Empire. Ancient Warfare and Civilizati.