Without Philip II of Macedon, No Alexander the Great: An Analysis

This essay meticulously examines the pivotal relationship between Philip II of Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great, arguing that Philip's influence was indispensable to Alexander's historical achievements. The essay delves into Philip's significant contributions, including the unification of Macedonia, the establishment of a strong economy, and the development of a formidable military force, which laid the groundwork for Alexander's subsequent conquests. It highlights Philip's strategic brilliance, diplomatic skills, and military reforms, emphasizing that Alexander inherited a well-prepared state and army due to Philip's foresight. The essay underscores that Alexander's military successes, the plan of invading Asia, and the strong economy were all because of Philip and his trained army men. By analyzing the historical context, the essay concludes that Alexander's greatness was fundamentally reliant on the foundations laid by his father, effectively asserting that "without Philip, there would have been no Alexander the Great." The essay also acknowledges that Alexander is known as “Alexander the Great” due to the situations that others have put him in and not due to his own general--ship and leadership quality.

Running head: WITHOUT PHILIP, NO ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
Without Philip, No Alexander the Great
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1WITHOUT PHILIP, NO ALEXANDER THE GREAT
1.
Alexander the Great is a well-known historic figure who is famous for his military
power and is also considered to be one of the most controversial and exciting figures of the
antiquity. It is due to his victory that he gained against the Persian Empire as well as his huge
range of conquests. There was no single general who took over more number of territories
before him. It was only until the time of Mongols empire, i.e., in 1206 to 1368 that an empire
would exceed the size of the empire of Alexander (Manville 2014). Not only the greatest
general in the world, but Alexander is also known for his bravery and is also considered to be
the greatest commanders of all that the world has even seen. However, it is doubtful that
without Philip II of Macedon, his father, Alexander could have achieved this popularity. This
essay is going to elaborate on claiming that without Philip, there would have been no
Alexander the Great.
Alexander III of Macedon is often regarded as the Alexander the Great and is among
the greatest exciting figures in the world. He is so famous that probably Jesus Christ is more
famous than him from the ancient world. He was just 20 years old when he was given the
authority of becoming the Kind of Macedonia during 336 BC. He even facilitated the
spreading of the Greek civilisation towards the East and had broaden the contacts in between
west and east (Muller 2018). He was the one to bring a sense of belongingness to the Greeks
to a greater world than just in the Mediterranean. There were many Greeks who used to
worship Alexander as a god when he was still alive. He was the first to take the vast number
of territories until the Mongolian empire. According to Griffith (1980), Alexander was a
legend during his own lifetime and he still remains as a legend today in the heart of the
people, as a result of the outpouring of books, novels about him and also the movies prove
the same. He is considered to be the bravest and greatest general in the world till date.

2WITHOUT PHILIP, NO ALEXANDER THE GREAT
However, it is to note that Alexander is regarded to be the greatest and bravest general
the world has ever seen due to the situations that others have put him in and not due to his
own general--ship and leadership quality. He could not have done anything without the help
of Philip II, who became the king in the 359 BC and ruled until 336 BC, when he was
assassinated. It is to mention that Philip has no such imperialistic ambitions initially but he
was much concerned with the unification of Macedonia and the border security (Griffith
1980). Without the help of Philip and what he did for the Macedonia, socially, culturally,
politically, economically and militarily, there would have been no Macedonian King who
would have been potential of undertaking the bold and strong venture of Asian invasion.
However, although Philip did not conquer on such a large scale that Alexander did, he has
changed the course of history of Greek forever and has made the Macedonia a significant
superpower during the ancient world (Buckler 2002). It is to note that prior to the reign of
Philip, Macedonia was in a very bad state. There were no centralised government and with
full of weak armies who were conscripted ones. Also, there was no sense of unity, no
economy in Macedonia (Markovic and Nikolov 2018). The nation was oscillating on the
verge of utter collapse. It was a victim of dynastic interferences and invasions from its
neighbouring Greek states and tribes like the Thebes and Athens. Furthermore, this chaos
was more intensified when the immediate predecessor of Philip and the other 4000 troops
were all killed in the battle.
According to Muller (2018), it was Philip who saved Macedonia from getting
collapsed and forged it as the first nation state in Europe. He was the one to left Alexander
with a well-developed, united Macedonia for the very first time in the history and with an
empire that was stretching right from the Greece to Danube; the then centralised monarchy;
the urban centres as well as a top class well trained and formidable army who became the
best in the Greek world (Worthington and Hammond 1994). Without his help and what he did

3WITHOUT PHILIP, NO ALEXANDER THE GREAT
for the Macedonia, there would have been no Macedonian King who would have been
potential of undertaking the bold and strong venture of Asian invasion. Also, Philip was the
one to crush the Greeks in the battle of Chaeronea and the one to lay the foundations of the
vast united Macedonian empire under Alexander. The great military successes of Alexander,
the plan of invading Asia and the strong economy were all because of Philip and his trained
army men (Thomas 2017). How Philip did all these in a time span of just twenty three years
is really a remarkable story. It is all a combination of military skills, the diplomatic nature,
the ruthlessness and speed of Philip and the several polygamous marriages that he conducted.
It is also to mention that Philip always sought to know what his enemies would do before
they actually did them. During a battle, he even lost his eyes and one of his collarbone was
shattered and gained a fatal wound in his leg (Brandmeir et al. 2018). Still, he remained the
same traditional king until his end. He was utterly loyal towards his kingdom as well as his
positions in the Greek world and taught Alexander the same.
It is to mention that the army of Macedonian was developed by his father Philip II
Macedon. It was his father who trained the army at the times of his wars with the Greece. At
the same time, it was under Philip that majority of the Greece was placated and this cleared
the way for the huge scale of financing and recruitment for the army (Stathopoulos 2017).
The warfare of phalanx is considered to be an evolution of the Greece soldier warfare and
Philip made the world’s best soldiers. After the assassination of Philip, Alexander deduced
the control of the army that his father had already made (Bagnall 1981). It was not required to
drill or train his army and he simply inherited it unlike the other greatest generals in the world
who had to train their own troops. Those generals developed some significant tactics to make
their troops better than the others and it was one of the notable reasons behind their greatness.
For example, Napoleon Bonaparte has to train his own forces to make his fortune with the
French Forces, the Italian army. Also, Hannibal Barca and Scipio Africanus were also

4WITHOUT PHILIP, NO ALEXANDER THE GREAT
required to train their troops from mercenaries and recruits for their campaigns. But,
Alexander got a ready-made army by his father Philip who served so well just like when they
were under the leadership of Philip. So, without Philip, there would have been no Alexander
and also, without him, the Greek history would have been completely different from what it
is today. Without Philip, the history of Greek would have been completely different and so is
the history of Macedonia. The army that he trained and created by all his own and the
advancements in the siegecraft that his corps of engineering oversaw along with the unity that
he himself have forged in the Macedonia, the strength of the economy that he attained and the
empire he created, Alexander III would have never achieved or would have achieved only a
little.
Hence, from the above analysis it can be said that there would have been no
Alexander without Philip. It was all because of Philip, that Alexander is known to be as
“Alexander the Great”. Although Philip did not conquer on such a large scale that Alexander
did, for which he is not the household name that Alexander is, he did changed the course of
history of Greek forever and has made the Macedonia a significant superpower during the
ancient world. The fact that Alexander is called “great” does not mean that he actually is.
While comparing the legacies of Philip and Alexander, it can be said that the reign of
Alexander brought to the fruition of what Philip began and he simply wrecked it. The legacy
of Alexander, as compared to Philip is un-great. It is also to mention that the great military
successes of Alexander, the plan of invading Asia and the strong economy were all because
of Philip and his trained army men. He got a ready-made army by his father Philip who
served so well just like when they were under the leadership of Philip. Hence, it is to state
that perhaps it is Philip who actually deserves to be called as “Great”, Philips the great. So,
the historical Alexander should be reassessed and so is the place of Philips in the Greek
history.

5WITHOUT PHILIP, NO ALEXANDER THE GREAT
References:
Bagnall, R.S., 1981. A History of Macedonia, Volume II: 550-336 BC.
Brandmeir, N., Payne, R., Rizk, E., Tubbs, R.S., Arsuaga, J.L. and Bartsiokas, A., 2018. The
Leg Wound of King Philip II of Macedonia. Cureus, 10(4).
Buckler, J., 2002. Demosthenes and Aeschines. In Demosthenes (pp. 128-172). Routledge.
Griffith, G.T., 1980. Philip as a General and the Macedonian Army. Philip of Macedon,
pp.58-77.
Manville, P.B., 2014. The origins of citizenship in ancient Athens (Vol. 1058). Princeton
University Press.
Markovic, N. and Nikolov, M., 2018. ASPECTS OF THE NAME DISPUTE BETWEEN
MACEDONIA AND GREECE: SYMBOLS, CONFLICT AND ECONOMIC COSTS. CEA
Journal of Economics, 12(2).
Müller, S., 2018. The Reception of Alexander’s Father Philip II of Macedon. In Brill's
Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great (pp. 72-95). Brill.
Stathopoulos, P., 2017. Did King Philip II of Ancient Macedonia Suffer a Zygomatico-
Orbital Fracture? A Maxillofacial Surgeon's Approach. Craniomaxillofacial trauma &
reconstruction, 10(03), pp.183-187.
Thomas, N., 2017. The Military Genius of Philip II of Macedon.
Worthington, I. and Hammond, N.G.L. eds., 1994. Ventures into Greek history. Oxford
University Press, USA.