Discussion: Which was the superior leader - Phillip II of Macedon or Alexander the Great?

Which of these two man were the more skilled/capable/had the greater effect on history?

  • Phillip II

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 23 79.3%

  • Total voters
    29
Now, I know that this is, at best, an unhelpful question. At worst it is completely meaningless. What I really want to do is cause a discussion on what exactly are the qualities of a so-called 'Great Man', an individual who is able to change history through the force directed by their own will, an important discussion to have on a forum that is all about changing history. (Regardless of the validity of the actual Great Man theory of history, one can't get away from the fact that history has often produced individuals of exceptional talents, who have often acted to steer history away from the absolute most likely proceeding steps).

Phillip II created an army and united Greece under his banner. His son Alexander used that army, and Greece, to conquer the largest empire on Earth at the time. Many contest that neither man could've done quite what the other had achieved if their places had been swapped. Again, this might be used as evidence to show that a comparison between the two is pointless, but to me this makes them a good example to test one's own conceptions on what makes a capable, history-changing leader, either those who create advantages for themselves, or those who exploit the advantages they have.

So, who was the superior leader? Why were they superior? If the question is meaningless, why is it meaningless?
 
Much as I think Phillip was the smarter and more visionary of the two he didn't conquer Persia and create a Hellenistic culture in the entire Mediterranean
 
It is known Phillip had "beat Persia" on his to-do list. Some historians theorize he might have been the better tactician (we don't know, he never fought on open terrain or river crossings). Still, he is a more mature and conservative man. He likely would accept an offer where he gets 75% of everything west of the Euphrates river, a large lump sum of money, and Dariu's daughter for a strategic marriage with Alexander.
 
If I had to pick which to build and train my army, I'd go for Phillip. If I had to pick which to lead it, I'd go for Alexander. Having both of them, one right after the other, is ideal and the accomplishments of Alexander are so tied to the army built by Phillip that I can't separate them enough to say one or the other was the better.

I like Alexander more on a personal basis for naming all those cities after himself. I appreciate that level of pride.
 
Alexander had the will to accomplish something bigger in life because of his conflictive relations with his legendary father. Think if George W and his dad, George Bush. W not only had to fill in some big shoes when compared to his dad, but show he could get re-elected twice to one-up him. Alexander competitive spirit with his own dad made him one of the greatest leaders in history in his short, but amazing life.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Philip layed the groundwork and foundation stones.

But Alexander built the mansion.

Whenever I read of Alexander's campaign I can't help but be in awe of the sheer audacity and almost need to keep on going.

I think if he could have he would have marched to the ends of the earth and back to Greece.

The man had both incredible energy and talent.

He thought in big terms-unifying Greek and Persian culture and creating a multi ethnic unified empire and according to some historians this was the first idea of universal brotherhood all of humanity under one government.

There was truly no one else like him in the annals of human history.
 
Top