The two greatest military commanders -- and men -- of the ancient Western world. Philip inherited a backwater that just had half their "army" killed alongside their king. Surrounded by stronger enemies on all sides, the Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrains, Thessalians, Athenians, and within a single generation had subdued them all and become master and Hegemon of the Greek world. Philip literally personally revolutionizing warfare with his creation of the Macedonian war machine. Inventing the sarissa, incorporating combined arms, revolutionizing siege techniques (even funding the invention of the torsion capital), and logistical methods to greatly increase the range and availability of his army. Caesar was the colossus of Rome, potentially the most experienced general of the ancient world. Having fought and won all the way from Britain, to Egypt and Anatolia. Fought various foes in Gauls, Germans, Britons, Egyptians, Anatolians, all the way to fellow Romans and defeated a legendary general in Pompey Magnus. Almost always at a disadvantage, he always managed to win. In Alesia with one wall he sieged Vercingetorix, with another wall he sieged the world. At Pharsalus he defeated one of Rome's greatest generals despite being at a heavy numerical disadvantage via hiding a line of heavy infantry behind his severely outnumbered cavalry. And that's just his career as a general. He likewise was a superlative politician and writer. Stealing a quote from a book, few fictional heroes have ever done as much as Gaius Julius Caesar.
>>18122915>torsion capitalcatapult*
>>18122915So Philip was superior to Alexander as a general in your opinion?
>>18123673I'm not really impressed by Alexander's tactics in major battles. It's the same thing over and over again: have his vastly superior heavy infantry advance then hold the line, and then his companion cavalry to route the enemy infantry/Darius. This combined arms tactic was developed by his father. That's not to say Alexander wasn't a great commander: he strategized the campaign well, e.g. securing his Western flank (Tyre, Gaze, Egypt etc.) to secure his ports and supplies before heading out further East, but what is most note worthy to me about him is his endless energy and boundless ambition. He was great to be sure, but in a practical sense Philip impresses me a little more.
>>18123959This makes me want to play Total War again
>>18123959And how do we know that it was Philip who introduced all those new tactics and it wasn't something that he inherited from previous generals?I think that he maybe approved those tactics but it was generals, all his life dedicated to war, that created those tactics. Not some noble that lived in a palace.
>>18124959Philip was a warrior-king. He was heavily injured in battle at least twice, including having one of his eyes destroyed by an arrow. He didn't exactly inherit a rich decadent kingdom and a sheltered life. The ancient sources, as far as I know, credit him with most of these reforms.
>>18123959And I don't really doubt that Philip would have had a different outcome from Alexander. Maybe they take a different approach leading to Gaugamela, but Philip would have conquered Persia. I don't think he had Alexander's vision though. Alexander took Philip's army and used it for his own plans. But at least up to conquering Persia, I think either one was capable.
