Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
[removed]
The Career of Philip II - King of Macedon (360/59 - 336)
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
[removed]
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
[removed]
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
[removed]
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Please comment, criticise and add requests for illustrations and pictures. Thanks! 
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
You may find this link useful:
Philip's Genealogy
Here's a helpful map (you'll need to download it to get full benefit!):
Map of Classical Macedon
- BTW, mods, this is a separate post because I want to use the previous one in case I need to expand the article!
Philip's Genealogy
Here's a helpful map (you'll need to download it to get full benefit!):
Map of Classical Macedon
- BTW, mods, this is a separate post because I want to use the previous one in case I need to expand the article!
A supreme article Calgacus!, and one that inspires me to write an article on the macedonian military in-depth that I have been promising for a while....
There are only a few things I hold in question;
-Phillips credit with this "military revolution"
and
-If he deserves to be great, as seen by modern eyes
to emphisize point 1, remember that the Macedonian army was HEAVILLY influenced by the theban army, in which Phillip learned his infantry AND cavalry tactics, I feel that personally,a great deal of luck was had by Phillip in the numbers of troops he had, and that most, dare I say all, incluging how the Phalangite was armed was all pioneered first by the lower greek states, most notabley Athens, and Thebes
as for point 2- Antiochus III is not remembered as great in modern eyes, and more then likelly it was little more then propaganda during his riegn (I cant say I know much about him), Phillip did indeed set up Alexanders path for conquest by simply having that wonderful army of his, BUT, It was Alexander who achieved it.
There are only a few things I hold in question;
-Phillips credit with this "military revolution"
and
-If he deserves to be great, as seen by modern eyes
to emphisize point 1, remember that the Macedonian army was HEAVILLY influenced by the theban army, in which Phillip learned his infantry AND cavalry tactics, I feel that personally,a great deal of luck was had by Phillip in the numbers of troops he had, and that most, dare I say all, incluging how the Phalangite was armed was all pioneered first by the lower greek states, most notabley Athens, and Thebes
as for point 2- Antiochus III is not remembered as great in modern eyes, and more then likelly it was little more then propaganda during his riegn (I cant say I know much about him), Phillip did indeed set up Alexanders path for conquest by simply having that wonderful army of his, BUT, It was Alexander who achieved it.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Thanks a lot
Yeah? When will we see that? Oh, and yeah, can you put a bibliography in, and maybe even a short (Just a paragraph or so)bibliographical essay???
I myself question those things. What precisely is your perspective?
Well, I'm not sure that Athens was a leading pioneer of infantry warfare, but you're right to say that Macedonioa probably owed a lot to its southern neighbours. That really goes without saying. I'm not sure about the Theban influence though. It seems natural and historically logical enough to postulate a strong influence, but there is almost no direct evidence.
Evidence, BTW, is something I'd like to request you discuss on your upcoming article.
No he isn't, but he usually has the title.
And don't start on that Alexander argument. I always get annoyed at the dogmatism.
Please always remember Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius - and remember the role of Parmenion too, as well as Philip. I might get round to an article on Parmenion later, in order to show just how much Alexander owed to him. 
Thanks for the feedback Xen. I knew that at least you would read it.
Stefan Haertel
Title
Excellent article :b:
I haven't had the time to read it through yet, but I will as soon as possible and post my opinions. BTW, I would be interested to read your opinions on my article on the history of ancient Iran too
I haven't had the time to read it through yet, but I will as soon as possible and post my opinions. BTW, I would be interested to read your opinions on my article on the history of ancient Iran too
Sorry I havent been able to respond sooner....
My main reasons for looking at Athens and Thebes as the teachers of Makedon are the following:
- During the hegemony of Thebes(after Spartan defeat at Leuctra) the Athenian general Ifikrates looked back on how during the Peloponisian war, a 700 man Spartan elite mora was defeated by Athenian peltasts at the battle of Lechaeum.
This inspired some changes to be made by good 'ol Ifikrates- those changes were designed to try to strik a balance between the one extrem of the super-heavey Hoplite infanty, and the lother extream of the ight infantry role of the peltast, thats all well and nice Xen, but what did he do?
- replaced the large bronze, wood, and leather shield, with a smaller shield(only about half as big) made of wood and leather
-greaves were replaced by leather sandals which became known as Ifikratids
-metal cuirass' are made a no no
('cept for officers), and are replaced by the "linen cuirass", a body armor made primarilly from MANY layers of linen (or leather, most of the time a healt mixture of both in the layers), and coverd with metal scales
-all this meant that the Ifikratedian hoplite was now much faster, but much less protected, to compensate, the standerd 9 foot spear was replaced by a 16 foot spear
This new equipment proved to be effective but nevertheless did it never manage to replace the traditional panoplia that other generals were using for thier troops. The Greek warriors valued armour most likely higher than speed. Though as you can see, the Ifikratedian hoplite is basiclly a macedonian phalangite, but thats not all, the Macedonian Hypaspists were also jus renamed Ifikratedian peltasts, as he made changes to them as well, because although peltasts were -primarilly- a harassing infantry type, and the power of the peltast had always been the principle of hit and run, but there was also a need to increase their capability to charge an enemy force. -He now carried a larger and oval shield made of wicker instead of the traditional pelte. Later on the shields were even made of wood. As a mercenary he earned enough money to afford himself a decent bronze helmet. His weapons were still the javelins and a short sword, but he now also carried a short spear for thrusting with him. These changes, unlike those made to the hoplite, were actually used by not only Athens, but by most Mediterranean states from Persia, to Spain
As for cavalry, Thebes and its nieghbors like Pherae, and Thessaly were some of the few of the Greek states that took any pride in thier cavalry, and even then they were short in number, but by comparison far superior to the souths cavalry, for instance; Sparta simplly didint have one, having to rely on its vassals for its small (even by Greek standerds) cavalry, and Athens while having a native cavalry did little else then use it cerimonially, and have the troops fight on foot (although was generally cavalry present in some nuber in non-marine Athenian operations), but both states did put thire higher ups on horse back, but thats about the extent of it...
My main reasons for looking at Athens and Thebes as the teachers of Makedon are the following:
- During the hegemony of Thebes(after Spartan defeat at Leuctra) the Athenian general Ifikrates looked back on how during the Peloponisian war, a 700 man Spartan elite mora was defeated by Athenian peltasts at the battle of Lechaeum.
This inspired some changes to be made by good 'ol Ifikrates- those changes were designed to try to strik a balance between the one extrem of the super-heavey Hoplite infanty, and the lother extream of the ight infantry role of the peltast, thats all well and nice Xen, but what did he do?
- replaced the large bronze, wood, and leather shield, with a smaller shield(only about half as big) made of wood and leather
-greaves were replaced by leather sandals which became known as Ifikratids
-metal cuirass' are made a no no
('cept for officers), and are replaced by the "linen cuirass", a body armor made primarilly from MANY layers of linen (or leather, most of the time a healt mixture of both in the layers), and coverd with metal scales-all this meant that the Ifikratedian hoplite was now much faster, but much less protected, to compensate, the standerd 9 foot spear was replaced by a 16 foot spear
This new equipment proved to be effective but nevertheless did it never manage to replace the traditional panoplia that other generals were using for thier troops. The Greek warriors valued armour most likely higher than speed. Though as you can see, the Ifikratedian hoplite is basiclly a macedonian phalangite, but thats not all, the Macedonian Hypaspists were also jus renamed Ifikratedian peltasts, as he made changes to them as well, because although peltasts were -primarilly- a harassing infantry type, and the power of the peltast had always been the principle of hit and run, but there was also a need to increase their capability to charge an enemy force. -He now carried a larger and oval shield made of wicker instead of the traditional pelte. Later on the shields were even made of wood. As a mercenary he earned enough money to afford himself a decent bronze helmet. His weapons were still the javelins and a short sword, but he now also carried a short spear for thrusting with him. These changes, unlike those made to the hoplite, were actually used by not only Athens, but by most Mediterranean states from Persia, to Spain
As for cavalry, Thebes and its nieghbors like Pherae, and Thessaly were some of the few of the Greek states that took any pride in thier cavalry, and even then they were short in number, but by comparison far superior to the souths cavalry, for instance; Sparta simplly didint have one, having to rely on its vassals for its small (even by Greek standerds) cavalry, and Athens while having a native cavalry did little else then use it cerimonially, and have the troops fight on foot (although was generally cavalry present in some nuber in non-marine Athenian operations), but both states did put thire higher ups on horse back, but thats about the extent of it...
Also Phillip was at one time (in his early life) a royal "hostage"( the meaning is slightl differnt in ancient greek conterxt, it was more like he was willing handed over for a time, but I dont know all the details) in Thebes, during the time of Great anti Spartan Alliances between Athens and Thebes, were our young Phillip came in contact with these new military ideas
Furius
Prince
Wonderful article, I learnt a lot from it (and I liked the Geneology link).
Similar threads
