WI: Philip II vs Epaminondas

Philip II vs Epaminondas

  • Philip II

    Votes: 13 76.5%
  • Epaminondas

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • Total voters
    17
WI: Philip II vs Epaminondas

What if Philip II of Macedon meet Epaminondas of Thebes in battle? Both were arguably the best generals of their respective times. Philip with his combined arms phalanx and cavalry attacks vs Epaminondas’s Oblique order. Philip’s style of warfare would influence the Hellenistic world for years to come and Epaminondas’s Oblique order would lead Frederick the Great to victory.
 
WI: Philip II vs Epaminondas

What if Philip II of Macedon meet Epaminondas of Thebes in battle? Both were arguably the best generals of their respective times. Philip with his combined arms phalanx and cavalry attacks vs Epaminondas’s Oblique order. Philip’s style of warfare would influence the Hellenistic world for years to come and Epaminondas’s Oblique order would lead Frederick the Great to victory.

But Philip II's war machine did use oblique tactics. He also was a hostage in Thebes earlier in his life and some have said that he was influenced by and may have even learned directly from Epaminondas himself the latter's innovations. The Macedonian army of Phillip II was a more sophisticated product of the evolution of 4th Century BPE warfare.
 
But Philip II's war machine did use oblique tactics. He also was a hostage in Thebes earlier in his life and some have said that he was influenced by and may have even learned directly from Epaminondas himself the latter's innovations. The Macedonian army of Phillip II was a more sophisticated product of the evolution of 4th Century BPE warfare.

I was speaking more generally, but good to know thanks:D
 
The Macedonian army of Phillip II was a more sophisticated product of the evolution of 4th Century BPE warfare.

Epaminondas defeated a SPARTAN army was larger than his own at Leuctra, which was no small feet. In his invasion of the Peloponesse in 370 the Spartans were even to scared to fight him. At Mantinea he was able to outmanuver his enemies and he was able to almost competly take them by suprise, which proves is operational ability. So though Philip is probably superior Epaminondas, he should still be taken seriously.
 
Epaminondas defeated a SPARTAN army was larger than his own at Leuctra

Why does everyone have this hero worship of the Spartans? The Spartans were undefeated on land for the most part yes, but they were a far cry from winning all of their battles. They never lost until Leuctra per say, but they were winning less and less. This was not the Sparta that won the Peloponnesian War.

Also, a large part of the Spartan army at Leuctra I believe was made up of allies, many of which (and I may be wrong here, I haven't refreshed my memory on Leuctra in awhile) just left the battle like they had done on occasion in previous battles. Only this time, Sparta was fully defeated.


Anyway, Epaminondas was a very good general, no doubt about it, but sometimes he gets a little too much credit. It was really the constraints of his army that forced him to use the tactic he did. Regardless, Phillip II is far and away the superior commander.
 
Got to agree with slydesertfox. Epaminondas is one of the greatest forgotten generals in history, and deserves some credit for being the inspiration behind many of Philip's reforms. Nevertheless, Philip had by far the more impressive career. And the Spartans at Leuctra merely led the army - their own force of the approx. 10,000 was no more than 700 IIRC. The era is called that of "Spartan Hegemony", but really Sparta by the point of Leuctra was far into decline, long past it's zenith; for generations the population of homoi was falling, and by 371 it had gotten dangerously small (as I recall, there were up to 8000 Spartan soldiers in 550 BC, down to around 1000 in 370). Agesilaos was the only reason Spartan hegemony lasted more than a decade past the end of the Peloponnesian War.
 
Last edited:
Top