When historians take a look into Macedonia during the reign of Phillip the second, there is no question that he had an extraordinary impact on the campaign that his son Alexander conducted. Whether it be the military engineering capabilities that Phillip implemented or the incredibly fast way that Alexander conquered the massive amount of land he did, the question still remains: which one of them was more responsible for the success of Macedonia.
Alexander was able to use his superior fighting force that was implemented and trained under his father Phillip to carry out what is considered to be one of the more successful and devastating military campaigns. There is no doubt that Alexander accomplished great achievements as being the predecessor of his father, but without these military capabilities that Phillip instituted, there is no way to give Alexander most of the credit. This is shown in the writing of Phillip of Macedon when it states “Alexander often reminded the Macedonian soldiers of the benefits received by Phillip II” (Phillip of Macedon). Phillip was able to revolutionize the tactics used by his soldiers in order to demolish opposing armies. His implementation of the sarrisae used by his soldiers was a dominate aspect that Alexander used to win many battles. He also used a cavalry that was able to flank most opposing armies in a way that his competitors had never seen before. His creation of the Torsion catapult gave his army the ability to siege cities in such a fast and devastating manner that it was easier to move on and continue on his campaign. His attitude towards his army with a “fight by each other’s side” created an extremely loyal fighting force without any worry of defection. Alexander successfully made use of these military strategies and innovations and without these things created by his father, there is no doubt that he would not have been as successful and dominate as his was. Alexander’s greatness as a military leader also lead to many problems with his men and their campaign. The fact that Alexander was so successful made him a leader that was seen as higher than his men. This was a major fault to his dominance because he men were not accustomed to having a leader that didn’t lead from the front. Alexander let his success go to his head and because of this he campaign began to slowly be less successful.
When looking at the United States for example, most people will credit the success of our nation to the founding fathers and the principles and ideals they implemented in the beginning stages of developing our country. One cannot point the finger to other leaders in history and credit them with the success the United States has without mentioning the founding fathers. Without these ideals implemented by our founding fathers, our success as a democracy would have failed a long time ago. Our nation was built off them whether it be the inalienable rights that we contain as American citizens, or the strong pride Americans carry. The United States is widely regarded as one of the most successful nations in modern history and continues to be a force to be reckoned with based off the foundations of our predecessors.