Ancient Warfare Answers episode (145): On Philip and Alexander's competence

Murray examines Juan from Patreon’s questions: "It seems that Phillip/Alexander’s army was almost invincible but afterwards 'Macedonian'-style armies seem to be a lot more hit and miss (vs. Romans, Indians, Parthians, Celts etc.). Was this because Philip/Alexander’s troops were uniquely competent/trained or the commanders after Alexander just couldn’t measure up? I’m mostly thinking about the pike phalanx but if there’s any info on the light infantry or cavalry troops I’d love to learn!" Enjoy the podcast? Support us via Patreon, now with optional magazine subscription!

Leave a comment

Related Posts

Ancient Warfare Answers episode (191): When do ancient sources agree but you call foul?
Ancient Warfare Answers episode (191): When do ancient sources agree but you call foul?
Murray considers an occasion when the ancient sources agree on a particular subject, but he, nonetheless, calls foul. En
Read More
Podcast episode (190): What do you think was the most important factor in ancient warfare
Podcast episode (190): What do you think was the most important factor in ancient warfare
The team each give their perspective(s) to answer a question from Jörn Schneider: ‘What mattered most in ancient warfare
Read More
Ancient Warfare Answers episode (189): How did ancient armies inspire loyalty among their troops
Ancient Warfare Answers episode (189): How did ancient armies inspire loyalty among their troops
Anne from Patreon asks ‘how did ancient armies and generals inspire (coerce?) loyalty among the troops?’ Murray attempts
Read More