Compare And Contrast Philip II And Alexander The Great
The Comparison of who better deserves the title of “The Great” Phillip II or Alexander
Ashlee Rioux
HIST 101
Dr. Paul Baxa
12/9/2013
Intro:
The common definition for the term “great” consists of being considerably above average or above normal. Normal can mean different things to different cultures and societies. For example, in the early years, having kings, the power to rule, and killing several thousands to accomplish this was normal to some, as was being a peasant, working on the farm and having nothing in your name to others. Both Philip II of Macedon and Alexander III of Macedon were above average and above normal in the sense that they achieved far more greatness than most in their time. This father/son duo ruled the Macedonian Empire and conquered a vast amount of surrounding land between 360-323 B.C. (1). Before Philip came to rule, the Macedonian empire was disintegrating and divided. The two men used different tactics both physically and …show more content…
His country was in danger and he felt threatened to take action. He gained power by uniting his country which is a key factor that distinguishes him from Alexander III. With an already united country and several tactics in place, Alexander seemed to have all of the hard work already done for him. Even though Philip lost several battles and did not expand his sieges outside Greece, he is still considered a great warrior and leader. What made him great wasn 't the amount of land he conquered; it wasn 't a never lose personality and record; it was the effect he had on his nation and the unification of his people. How can you not admire someone who brought a nation of farmers and sheep herders and turned them into one of the most dangerous and successful militia in the entire world in only two decades? (5). Without these developments, Alexander 's crusades and accomplishments would not have been
Ashlee Rioux
HIST 101
Dr. Paul Baxa
12/9/2013
Intro:
The common definition for the term “great” consists of being considerably above average or above normal. Normal can mean different things to different cultures and societies. For example, in the early years, having kings, the power to rule, and killing several thousands to accomplish this was normal to some, as was being a peasant, working on the farm and having nothing in your name to others. Both Philip II of Macedon and Alexander III of Macedon were above average and above normal in the sense that they achieved far more greatness than most in their time. This father/son duo ruled the Macedonian Empire and conquered a vast amount of surrounding land between 360-323 B.C. (1). Before Philip came to rule, the Macedonian empire was disintegrating and divided. The two men used different tactics both physically and …show more content…
His country was in danger and he felt threatened to take action. He gained power by uniting his country which is a key factor that distinguishes him from Alexander III. With an already united country and several tactics in place, Alexander seemed to have all of the hard work already done for him. Even though Philip lost several battles and did not expand his sieges outside Greece, he is still considered a great warrior and leader. What made him great wasn 't the amount of land he conquered; it wasn 't a never lose personality and record; it was the effect he had on his nation and the unification of his people. How can you not admire someone who brought a nation of farmers and sheep herders and turned them into one of the most dangerous and successful militia in the entire world in only two decades? (5). Without these developments, Alexander 's crusades and accomplishments would not have been