By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire

Ancient Warfare and Civilization

by Ian Worthington

Alexander the Great, arguably the most exciting figure from antiquity, waged war as a Homeric hero and lived as one, conquering native peoples and territories on a superhuman scale. From the time he invaded Asia in 334 to his death in 323, he expanded the Macedonian empire from Greece in the west to Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt, Central Asia and "India" (Pakistan and Kashmir) in the east. Although many other kings and generals forged empires, Alexander produced one that was without parallel, even if it was short-lived.And yet, Alexander could not have achieved what he did without the accomplishments of his father, Philip II (r. 359-336). It was Philip who truly changed the course of Macedonian history, transforming a weak, disunited, and economically backward kingdom into a military powerhouse. A warrior king par excellence, Philip left Alexander with the greatest army in the Greek world, a centralized monarchy, economic prosperity, and a plan to invade Asia.For the first time, By the Spear offers an exhilarating military narrative of the reigns of these two larger-than-life figures in one volume. Ian Worthington gives full breadth to the careers of father and son, showing how Philip was the architect of the Macedonian empire, which reached its zenith under Alexander, only to disintegrate upon his death. By the Spear also explores the impact of Greek culture in the East, as Macedonian armies became avatars of social and cultural change in lands far removed from the traditional sphere of Greek influence. In addition, the book discusses the problems Alexander faced in dealing with a diverse subject population and the strategies he took to what might be called nation building, all of which shed light on contemporary events in culturally dissimilar regions of the world. The result is a gripping and unparalleled account of the role these kings played in creating a vast empire and the enduring legacy they left behind.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Nonfiction, War, Greece, Historical, Ancient

411 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Ian Worthington has been Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University since 2017. Before then, he held an endowed chair as Curators' Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Missouri, USA. He hails from northern England, taking his B.A. at Hull and M.A. at Durham, before moving to Monash University to do his Ph.D.

Worthington specializes in Greek history and oratory. To date, he has written 9 sole-authored books, 1 co-authored book, edited 9 books, translated 2 volumes of the Greek orators (in the University of Texas Oratory of Classical Greece series), and written over 100 articles and essays on Greek history, oratory, epigraphy, and literature.

Reviews

[BenAbe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a study of the rise and fall of the Macedonian Empire which explores the reigns, achievements and shortcomings of Philip and Alexander.



The author presents Philip as the architect of the empire and Alexander as its master builder and destroyer. He evaluates how they conducted themselves as kings and generals (two very different things) and how they responded to the problems and challenges they faced along the way. The book also explores the impact of their conquests on both the conquered and the conquerors.


I fear there is little new to say about Alexander and his conquests. However, the author offers some interesting insights into topics that have been explored extensively elsewhere. His treatment of Alexander’s claim to divinity and the legacy of both father and son are worth mentioning. I have included a brief summary of each below:


I/"Are You There, Zeus? It’s Me, Alexander":


Concerning Alexander’s claim to personal divinity the author favors the position that it was authentic rather than a cynical ploy for political ends. In other words: Alexander really saw himself as a god, the son of a god.

According to this interpretation, the seeds of this belief were planted during the conquest of Ionia in 334 BC, with the revival of the Temple of Apollo at Didyma (which had been left in ruins by the Persians for over a century and a half). When Alexander visited the sanctuary, the dormant sacred spring supposedly began to flow again, and the oracle proclaimed him to be the 'son of Zeus'. The author sees this as the beginning of Alexander’s quest for godhood, writing that “his quest for apotheosis began with Apollo at Didyma.”

After he won control of Egypt, Alexander, only in his mid-twenties, was worshiped by the native Egyptians. To find out whether Apollo’s oracle had been right, and whether the Egyptians were right to worship him, Alexander needed to consult Zeus himself. This led to the next step in the evolution of his perceived divinity: his reckless excursion to the Oracle of Zeus Ammon at Siwah. The visit further reinforced his belief, and Alexander emerged from that oasis in Egypt’s Western Desert to proclaim to his men that Zeus had acknowledged him as his son. As the author puts it, “After Siwah Alexander the man morphed into Alexander the god.”

In the author’s view, the strongest indication that Alexander genuinely believed himself to be a god is his controversial attempt to introduce proskynesis at his court in Bactria. On the one hand, Alexander would have been well aware that this practice would provoke hostility among his men, who regarded it as sacrilegious and objected to its slave-like posture. On the other hand, the theory that he was striving to create equality among all his subjects and intended proskynesis to be a common form of greeting, doesn’t hold water for he knew that his men looked down upon the Persians for prostrating themselves before him and would never willingly denigrate themselves in the same way they criticized the barbarians for doing.

And so, “that leaves us with only one explanation: he intended proskynesis to acknowledge his divine status, regardless of the hostile reaction.”

From then on, it was a downward spiral into megalomania, as Alexander openly flaunted his divinity, alienating his men in a way that Philip never had.



II/ Alexander the Not-So-Great? :


The ancient writers did not merely put Philip on par with Alexander but (as the author argues) spoke more highly of him, indicating that the former was seen as a great leader whose merits far outweighed his faults. The author illustrates this contrast through Diodorus’s remarks on the two kings:


“ Diodorus, who at the end of his account of the reign simply states that Alexander ‘accomplished greater deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who were to come later down to our time.’ This too contrasts with his remarks that Philip ‘made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time’ and ‘won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world.’ ”


As the above shows, when it comes to Alexander, the focus is on his “deeds,” while Philip is evaluated in terms of his kingship. This is in line with the author’s treatment of his two subjects: assessing both not just in terms of generalship (in which Alexander was undoubtedly the greater), but also in terms of statesmanship. For even though the father’s military exploits didn’t shine as brightly as those of his son, there is more to being a king than generalship.

This account shows us that once we look at Alexander beyond mere conquest and consider the nature of kingship, and especially his legacy, the following shortcomings become apparent:

A/ His army grew increasingly resentful of his Orientalism and favoring of Asian officials, his pretensions to personal divinity, and his self-serving reasons for marching into new and hostile territory. For the latter, a case in point is the disastrous march through the Gedrosian Desert, which was partly motivated by his desire to outdo Semiramis Queen of Assyria, and Cyrus the Great.

B/ Alexander defeated his enemies but ultimately did not conquer them in any lasting sense, nor did he impose long-term stable rule, even though he tried to reconcile his new subjects to his rule through local aristocracies. The natives still saw him as an invader. Just as he managed to alienate his own men he did the same with the locals (particularly in the East), by failing to appreciate the potency of native religion and its importance in their eyes for binding subject to ruler. Add to this his frequent disregard for local customs and going as far as abolishing some practices. For example, he abolished the Bactrian custom of feeding the elderly and sick to dogs (Something that amusingly enough, the author argues he should not have done, and that he should instead have tried to “understand” them.... Yeah, I think not: Billions must be civilized! And barbarism shall stop! )

C/ His insistence on all things Greek in terms of culture, instead of bringing East and West together further widened the divide between them, with the latter feeling ever more excluded (and therefore resentful). Though this also contributed to the explosion of the Hellenistic zeitgeist in the post-Alexandrian age.

D/ He was careless with his own safety, risking his life unnecessarily on several occasions, given the stakes at play. Such risks could have brought his enterprise to a quick end, along with the Argead line of Macedonian kings. Alexander had failed to provide an heir: his son from his marriage to Barsine was illegitimate, while his marriage to Roxane came too little, too late. In the end, the royal line did not survive anyway, but Alexander’s recklessness could have brought about its end much sooner.

In relation to this final point, the author briefly contrasts Alexander’s battlefield recklessness with Darius’s flight from Issus, which he views more positively as a mark of responsible kingship (rather than cowardice). There is a sense of tragic nobility in Darius leaving his family behind and prioritizing the continuity of Achaemenid rule over his own blood (at least that's how I interpreted the author’s view) . Had Darius fallen into Alexander’s hands, he might have been imprisoned or killed, losing the opportunity to regroup and fight another day ( though needless to say, that ultimately proved futile anyway).



All of the above points explain why Alexander’s imperial project was far from sustainable and why he was unable to reconcile his kingship with his subjects.
Hence, Diodorus’s remark that it was Philip, not Alexander, who “won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world.”

Whereas his father’s ghost could look approvingly upon what he had bequeathed to his son a decade after his death, admiring the glorious expansion of the empire he had set in motion, Alexander could not do the same a decade after his own death. Instead, he could only look upon the pieces into which his enterprise had been divided, and the struggles of his former companions to carve out their own shares rather than preserve the whole.



This account is divided into two parts. The first third deals with Philip, his reign and legacy, while the remaining two thirds cover Alexander. In his coverage of Philip, the author extensively reuses material from his previous biography of him. (Whether the reader of this review might want to check that earlier work is up to him, since it essentially covers the first part of this book only this time in greater detail). Hence, I found no need to discuss Philip’s side of the story in this review.

Still, the coverage of Alexander is superb. In addition to exploring issues that remain relevant to our world such as the challenges of ruling a multicultural/multi-ethnic polity, it also helped correct some misconceptions (For instance, Alexander was never formally crowned pharaoh. He received the titles of pharaoh and for all intents and purposes acted and was worshipped as one. However no physical coronation is documented and the account claiming one comes from a later, unreliable source).

Something I’ve increasingly come to appreciate about Ian Worthington’s writing is its sober approach to narrative history. Rather than relying on dramatic reconstructions or elaborate scene-setting, he focuses on how his subjects dealt with the problems they faced, what factors shaped their decisions, and how they went about solving them. This inevitably involves some inference, but Worthington generally keeps it to a minimum, particularly in his treatment of Alexander. He rarely ventures into Alexander’s state of mind, with a few exceptions such as when exploring his claim to divinity and what may have motivated it, yet even there, the inferences remain grounded in the sources and are limited to what is needed to make Alexander’s actions comprehensible without overreaching.



Rating: 4.4/5.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, I certainly have a different opinion of Alexander the Great than before. I used to think of him as a guy, a king, that went off to conquer as much of Asia as he could. This book started off by discussing Philip II (Alex's daddy) and how the Macedonians came to rule all of Greece. After Philip's assassination, Alexander became king and the fun started. Both daddy and him had their sights set on Persia, and after Alexander took care of things in Greece, off to Asia, and Persia, he went. He never returned to Greece, as him and his army conquered most of what is now the Middle East. Battle after battle, fight after fight Alexander went with his army and all of the intrigue that accompanied it. Brutality was the word, as Alexander brutalized conquered people, in most cases, and in other cases he was quite nice to them. I also found that you didn't piss him off. He was one that carried grudges and regardless of who you were, or if it was a mistake, if you wronged him, you could count on being dead within a short time. Essentially the book tells about Alexander and his desire to conquer the known world. His troops mutinied twice, but he was able to pacify them with gold and promises. They got as far as India and then decided (well his men decided for him) to return to Greece...he never made it. Before he could take his army into what is now Saudi Arabia, he got very sick, and drunk, at a party and died...most likely from alcohol poisoning. With his death, the entire Macedonian/Greek army was broken into three different parts and ultimately the Romans came on the scene about 200 years later. Interesting book, fast read, and good info on how Alexander came to be, and how he came to be referred to as "the great." I recommend it.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough and mostly well-researched book on the Macedonian empire, with a tight focus on the reigns of Philip II and Alexander. Worthington portrays Philip as the brilliant founder and Alexander as the talented and flawed conqueror who threw away his successes and opportunities. Although this argument makes sense, Worthington's use of evidence to support it is wanting at times. The narrative has many interesting parts, some more detailed than others, and Worthington argues that Alexander’s empire was crumbling even before his death---even though this argument is based mainly on the rebellion of a few satraps.

On the whole, I don’t think Worthington wrote anything genuinely new here. While this isn’t a huge issue, it becomes one when Worthington gets around to his argument. Worthington does not provide much information on Philip’s build-up of Macedon’s army or how he posted forces to the frontiers of his kingdom. Curiously, Worthington does not discuss Philip’s achievements as a diplomat and conqueror. Worthington’s treatment of Alexander also relies heavily on the idea that Alexander wanted to belittle and outdo his father’s achievements, while ignoring other factors like Alexander’s general ambition. And oddly, Worthington claims that Alexander’s last words were that the empire go “to the best,” even though it is widely accepted that he said “to the strongest.” And when discussing the Greco-Persian wars Worthington writes that Xerxes fled back to Persia after the battle of Salamis, leaving a remainder behind. Worthington ignores Persia’s fierce effort at Plataea. The narrative can also get repetitive at times. At one point Worthington writes that Alexander killed Cletus during a drunken brawl (which he did) and then writes elsewhere that Alexander killed him “in cold blood.”

Still, a fairly good dual biography of Philip and Alexander.

[DoctorM · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, solid account of the creation of the kingdom of Macedon and the explosion of Macedonian rule and Greek culture eastwards under Philip II and Alexander III. Worthington spends a good deal of time reviving Philip of Macedon, the man who built Macedon up from a warlord's fief at the northern edge of the Hellenic world and made it into the dominant power in Greece--- he makes the clear point that without his father's work, Alexander would never have had the armies and political prestige needed to set off into Persia and beyond. Worthington writes well, and has a good eye for detail. Very good account of the Macedonian invasion of the Levant and the battles of Granikos and Issos, and a sympathetic account of the Persian side as well. Not as detailed as Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon", but a good read nonetheless.

[Sean Silvia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Skillfully written, a very clear, informative read

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

By the Spear provides a good, albeit fairly brief, dual biography of the brilliant Philip II of Macedon and his son who grew to eclipse his greatest achievements: Alexander the Great. With this book Worthington attempts to put Philip back into the limelight by suggesting that Alexander's conquests would have been impossible without the army created by Philip and that while Alexander's talents shone in his decade of conquest, Philip was the more successful statesman. It is hard to disagree with parts of Worthington's arguments; Philip did bring a revolution to Macedon that brought it from a politically irrelevant backwater to the hegemon of Greece and left his son a veteran army ready to invade Asia. To pretend Alexander's achievements were ex nihilo would indeed be a disservice to the skills of Philip and while the empire that Alexander won 'By the Spear' fell apart immediately following his death Philip's survived his, proving to be relatively stable.

However, Worthington in general missteps in his conclusions. To put it simply, Philip, whatever his skills were, was no Alexander. Throughout the book the 'pothos' (intense desire) of Alexander for conquest is repeatedly brought up as a criticism that caused him to bring his army to the edges of the known Greek world, a point which they were unwilling to cross. But Worthington doesn't credit this same unique trait of Alexander for bringing the Macedonians to heights that would have been unimaginable during the reign of Philip. The invasion of Asia as planned by Philip was largely intended to undo the Peace of Antalcidas (387 BC) in which the Greek cities on the west coast of Asia Minor were granted to the Persian Empire. Alexander on the other hand sought to make himself master of all Asia and avenge the long-standing Greek grudge against the Persians stemming from the age of Xerxes. It is impossible to imagine Philip at the Battle of Gaugamela, not just because Philip was not a general of Alexander's calibre but because at Gaugamela Alexander was attempting to make himself ruler of Persia. His father could never have dreamt of a task of this magnitude.

Furthermore, I would argue that while Philip's reforms to the Macedonian army and introduction of the famous pikemen did provide a good fighting force for Alexander to use it was Alexander who perfected the army. The army as Philip imagined performed excellently in the early campaigns of Alexander here I would borrow Robin Lane Fox's argument that Philip left a highly competant army that "only lacked one element, a leader of natural genius". It was Alexander's skills that allowed the army formed in the reign of Philip to perform to its fullest extent. Indeed, I doubt Worthington would disagree with this as he frequently states the skill of Alexander as a battlefield general. What Worthington does not note are the changes that were brought into the army as it continued its conquests. In the far east the pike blocks became less useful and instead greater compositions of missiles troops (generally taken from nations Alexander had subjugated) became core parts of the fighting force. The sarissa was apparently abandoned for large sections of the Afghanistan campaign. It is clear that Alexander did not just use an excellent army well but rather knew how to modify his army to produce the best results for his varied campaigns. By the end of his decade of conquest, it was far more his army than his fathers.

The book uses the metaphor of Philip as the 'architect' of the Macedonian Empire and Alexander as the 'Master-builder'. I do not think this is apt. Describing Philip as the architect seems to imply that Alexander's reign was simply the very skilled continuation of the policy of his father. Instead, the campaigns of Alexander were far beyond anything imaginable by almost any Greek before him. While Philip set him up well it was Alexander's strategic skill and unending desire for conquest that brought the ancient world into a new age. In the concluding chapter of the book Worthington says the real legacy of Alexander the Great was not the cultural achievements of the Hellenistic age but rather the wars that spawned the Successor states after his death. I would argue that one was impossible without the other. Alexander alone could have dreamt up and then enacted the campaigns that brought Greek to the world and because Alexander was who he was he could not have left behind a stable legacy. But ultimately, there are few who deserve the epitaph 'The Great' as much as Alexander, and while bringing Philip into the historical limelight is commendable, it is improper to try to claim his son's achievements as his.

[Henrik Haapala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alexander the Great
• Conquered the world by age 31.
• Tutored by Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of the day, between ages 14-16. “As a parting gift Aristotle presented Alexander with his own, annotated copy of Homers Iliad, which he took with him to Asia, famously keeping it next to a dagger under his pillow when he went to bed.” 97
• Read the greeks: “Alexanders love of reading never abated – even in Asia he requested that his imperial treasurer, Harpalus, send him books by the historian Philistus; tragedies by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides; and poems by Telestes and Philoxenus.” 94-95
• Philip II, father of Alexander, get the empire going and left a significant legacy: “Even a cursory comparison of Macedonia at the time Philip came to power in 359 to its strength and position in the Greek world when he was assassinated in 336 proves his greatness as its king. From a backwater located on the periphery of the Greek world Philip fashioned Macedonia into a military and economic powerhouse in a reign of only 24 years.” 115
• Leading from the front and courage: “To goad his men into redoubling their efforts Alexander climbed the walls of the citadel at Malli, but then the scaling ladders broke behind him, stranding him and three others on the battlements. They were sitting ducks for the Mallian archers, so Alexander immediately jumped into the enemy’s midst, the others following suit. Hopelessly outnumbered they nevertheless fought ferociously until one of the king’s comrades was killed. Then Alexander fell to an enemy arrow, which punctured his lung. The remaining Macedonians prepared for the inevitable but were rescued in the nick of time when the besiegers stormed the citadel and slew everyone – men, women, and children.” 4
• Similar to Alexander, Philip lost an eye in battle.

[Piker7977 · Rating 4 out of 5]

By the Spear is well-rounded study of the two Macedonian kings who ruled the Greek world and conquered the East. The chapters are chronologically arranged with helpful subtopics dedicated to events, policies, tactics, battles, and other considerations.

If this would have been only about Alexander the Great, I'm sure I would have much more respect for his historical legacy. Worthington's analysis of both Philip II and Alexander raises my esteem of Phil, by a leaps and bounds, while leaving me a little flat on Alex. He was an important historical figure, but overblown in his accomplishments. His old man on the other hand is a different story. Interesting leader with more grounded successes than his son.

[モーリー · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a lot of information in this book, and that's part of the problem. The author takes the "one event after another in chronological order" approach to history, making it pretty boring and difficult to focus on. The events feel disconnected from each other which isn't helped by sections as short as a single page. I really am interested in learning about the history of Macedonia but this book wasn't working for me. I couldn't get through more than the first 70 pages. YMMV if this is your style of history writing, though.

[Sam Crognale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent narrative history of one of the greatest men to have ever lived. These books are always hindered by lack of sources, but the battles were well described. I would definitely recommend this to someone interested in Alexander/Macedonia.

[Clare Carter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to read this for class and it's actually a pretty easy read and I didn't exactly find it riveting but it sure did teach me about Philip and Alexander and I'm a dork so I'm glad I know that stuff now :D

[Dave Peticolas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick but very informative history of the Macedonian Empire spanning both Philip II and Alexander, reassessing each in the light of the other.

[MisterLiberry Head · Rating 2 out of 5]

BY THE SPEAR is an almost painfully dry, scholarly entry into longstanding debate by historians over the relative merits of father-and-son Macedonian warrior kings Philip II (d.336 BCE) and Alexander III (d.323 BCE). The book is footnoted, indexed, replete with maps, timelines, thumbnail bios and bibliographies – as it should be. The strength of Worthington’s 2014 tome for a non-scholar is how well organized he has made his material and the helpfulness of frequent subtitles within chapters (to facilitate skip-about-readers).

Philip had, by age 30, brilliantly fulfilled his kingship by transforming the economy, building infrastructure, and giving bloody noses to all Macedonia’s enemies, including the Greeks in 338 BCE – thus securing Macedonia’s borders and extending its frontier in every direction that mattered. Not only did Philip transform Macedonia into a major ancient power, he guaranteed succession by taking seven (!!) wives and producing sons. His heir, Alexander III (the Great), was much more a military adventurer than a statesman. “Alexander was more admired abroad as a conqueror than at home as a king,” Worthington writes (p302). Also, Alexander’s self-regard and later delusional eccentricities flourished the further he campaigned from home and the more overwhelming odds his armies overcame on battlefields and in sieges. Worthington frequently notes of Alexander that “his costliest mistake ever” was failing to leave behind either a biological heir to the kingship or an undisputed successor when he died in Babylon of what Worthington diagnoses as acute alcoholic pancreatitis. (A minor admonition to the author: it was annoying that a competent historian consistently referred to Alexander’s siblings by various of Philip’s wives but with whom Alexander shared a father as “stepbrothers” rather than “half-brothers.” Mister Liberryhead has had both and personally knows there is a big difference.) “The single empire he created was more mirage than reality” (305), Worthington concludes – broken up piecemeal after Alexander’s demise and entirely gone within 200 years. The subtitle of BY THE SPEAR encompasses the history of the Macedonian empire: it rose because of Philip and fell after Alexander.

[Ginger Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rightly foregrounds the role of Philip II of Macedon, Alexander's father. Because if Philip hadn't subdued Greece, it's unlikely that Alexander could have made his famous conquests.

You can almost feel the author's frustration with the Greek city states, who failed to heed Demosthenes' warning that they needed to unite against Philip or be conquered (spoiler alert: they were conquered).

Book suffers from the usual bane of ancient history: lack of original sources. A few cryptic passages survive from ancient Babylonian astronomical diaries and Egyptian papyri. And there are ancient coins with the (supposed) image of Alexander. But most written accounts rely on later historians, some of whom wrote centuries after Alexander died (though they cite earlier documents that have since been lost). Archaeology has been able to fill in some of the gaps, especially for the major battles.

Alexander was mythologized from the start, so it's hard to separate fact from fantasy. He clearly was devoted to Greek culture, despite being a coarse Macedonian (Aristotle served as one of his tutors and he was said to sleep with a copy of _The Iliad_ under his head).

In general, though, the tales about Alexander are a reminder of why skepticism is always a good practice when studying ancient writings. Alexander was believed to be the son of Zeus (a story that Alexander himself reportedly publicized to the max). No surprise, since divine parentage was a must-have for ancient heroes. Zeus was said to have impregnated Alexander's mother with his thunderbolt and/or announced himself to Philip by appearing in a dream disguised as a snake. Other tales about Alexander's life and leadership sound more plausible, though they too seem heavily curated.

Alexander died in 323 BCE, just shy of 33 years old, from causes unverified. He received several severe battle wounds during his lifetime and reportedly was a heavy drinker. His body may have just worn out from constant marching, fighting, and drinking, as the author suggests.

After he died, Alexander's generals divided his empire among themselves. Their successor empires fought one another relentlessly over the next centuries, weakening themselves and setting their territories up for conquest by Rome.

In the meantime, though, they spread Greek culture far and wide. Hellenism became The Culture throughout the Mediterranean region, strongly influencing every political, religious, and social development that came after (the Romans couldn't get enough of it). So if you reside within western civilization, welcome to his world. This is your brain on Alexander.

[Omar Amer · Rating 3 out of 5]

It had some interesting analytical aspects especially when comparing Philip’s reign to Alexander’s reign.
It also highlighted some uncharted territories concerning the differences between kings and conquerers.
Alexander’s change of character along his campaigns was only a natural outcome of them.
A man who at the age of 31 was ruler of the largest empires in antiquity, had unlimited access to large amounts of gold and had an army that was the world’s top military force of it’s day. It’s no surprise he started to contemplate his divinity.
But his men had a different say in the matter.
Not one but two mutinies proved that his soldiers had had enough. Forcing Alexander to stop marching east and publicly declaring their hatred for his increasingly oriental tendencies proved that his men were not as sure he was of his divinity.
Towards the end of his days he was increasingly distrustful of those around him and after his best friend Hephaestion he was lonelier than ever.
Alexander was a brilliant strategist and a more courageous king there were few. But there’s a challenge to running a vast antique empire just as hard, if not even harder, as conquering it.
It’s true that Alexander had no precedent for this East meets West challenge and that he tried his best to overcome it. But in the end his empire was crumbling shortly before his death and not having an heir only served to compound the problem.
The book was very entertaining but needed to increase its analytical aspects especially when discussing the psychological reasons behind Alexander’s actions.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good book. Transitions from independent Greek states (Spartans 300 era) to Persian Kings coming into Greece. Disrespected northern territory called Macedonia begins throwing bows in the region. After fledging for generations, a leader named Philip II steps up and begins DJ Khaled-ing every battle to amass the largest contingency of Greek states in history, eventually including blue chips like Athens and Sparta. Sure he had seven wives and also several male side pieces (common place) but he was the best strategic general of his time (only to be outdone by his son) yet preferred diplomacy over battling. After Philip was murdered by one of his bodyguards, Alexander "The Great" massively expanded his father's empire. It's at this point where the book begins to drag a little bit by continuously highlighting one battle to the next. Alexander goes to Persian, then to Egypt, then to Persia, then to Iran and Afghanistan, then to India and Pakistan. Alexander was away from his homeland for ~15 years and never returned to Pella, Macedonia after he departed on his conquering excursion. I wish this book featured Olympias (Alexander's mom and Philip's fourth wife) but she was a merely a footnote. Alexander leads from the front, constantly getting injured in battle and serves as a model leader. He begins adopting too many Persian and Asian lifestyles for his compatriot's liking, from clothing to religion, and eventually dies from what is guessed to be either a inside-poisoning-job or a hard lifestyle of fighting, drinking, and nonstop traveling.

[April · Rating 2 out of 5]

Worthington really likes Phillip, who I someone I have little use for, and little use for Alexander, who I’ve always preferred to his father so it’s not ideal. My main issue is that never once did Worthington address the fact that Phillip never had a chance to medize (to borrow a phrase from 100 years earlier) since he was assassinated before he ever had the chance to invade Asia. Worthington has two separate standards, which is fine, but the fact he never admits this pisses me off. Alexander gets painted as a megalomaniacal mass murderer while Phillip ends up the finest king of his age. Like they were both xenophobic (Phillip Arguably more so) megalomaniacal mass murderers, so let’s call a spade a spade. Just because the only cities in which Phillip destroyed completely were in Greece or surrounding area in the name of “stability” doesn’t actually make him a better leader. It’s true that without Phillip there would be no Alexander, but that’s true in more ways than Worthington ever wants to admit.

[John K K Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Outstanding Introduction to the World of Philippi

As someone currently writing a book on Philippians, I found By the Spear to be an invaluable resource. N. G. L. Hammond (or Ian Worthington, depending on the edition) brings the rise of Philip II and the world that gave birth to Philippi vividly to life. Rather than presenting history as a list of dates and battles, the author weaves together the political, military, and cultural forces that shaped Macedonia and ultimately prepared the stage for the New Testament.

The writing is engaging, well researched, and accessible to readers with either a casual or serious interest in ancient history. I came away with a much deeper appreciation for Philip II, the strategic importance of Macedonia, and the historical backdrop that eventually became the setting for Paul’s ministry in Philippi.

If you’re interested in the history behind the New Testament, the life of Philip II, or the rise of the Macedonian kingdom before Alexander the Great, I highly recommend this book.

[Phil · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a decent summary for those interested in learning more about Philip's role in setting the stage for Alexander the Great's dominance of the ancient world as the leader of the Macedonian (yes, Macedonian - not Greek!) Empire. Much of the focus of historians modern and ancient has been on Alexander's deeds, to the neglect of the important work Philip did to secure Macedonia's frontiers and modernize its military forces with better pay, training and equipment. That's the book's upside.

The writing is a bit dry. Many historians who focus on antiquity seem to fall into the trap of reporting events in much the same manner of their primary sources - rote repetition of dates and deeds with little analysis. I wonder if the whole project suffers a bit from the dearth of reliable information available on some of the figures involved. Regardless of the reason, however, you won't find a tremendous amount of action here, or many stunning new insights on Macedonia.

[Kim Hoag · Rating 4 out of 5]

A gift from my brother, Kevin, along with Philip II of Macedonia: Greater than Alexander, and it's an essential companion to the latter. Worthington's views of Phillip are a perfect compliment to the other by Richard A. Gabriel. I enjoyed the Philip portion more than the Alexander section, mostly, I suppose, because it was difficult to see him decompose as I knew he would. His negative behaviors doomed him shortly after the beginning of his campaign. His father might have done better than his son, although his behavior also doomed him by his successes. Hmm. Maybe father and son were more alike than I thought: both dreamed of success (which they achieved) and both were heavy drinking sons of Macedonia. Altogether, an enlightening read that made Alexander's genius and demons much more clear for me. The Worthington book also had better maps than Gabriel's, and so was easier to follow.

[Rick Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The introduction and first six chapters are the standouts here, as the inclusion of Philip II and his accomplishments really sets the stage for the story of Alexander. The rest of the book is fine, but (1) seems overly brief in its narrative at times (and is covered more thoroughly in other, similar books so maybe this isn’t a huge deal) and (2) I don’t know that I fully agree with all of Worthington’s conclusions about Alexander. Certainly he could not have done what he had without what Philip II built, but his legacy seems minimized; surely he left behind more than the wars of his successors. I’m not sure there’s anything revelatory here, but if you’re looking for a good starter book on Alexander or if you’re just interested in anything about the topic (as I am), it is definitely worth checking out.

[Dale S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire
Author. Ian Worthington


Offers a unique, joint narrative of Philip and Alexander's reigns
Addresses the long-term after-effects of this watershed moment in ancient history and what makers of modern strategy can learn from their successes and failures
Explores the role these kings played in creating a vast empire and the enduring legacy they left behind

If you want to read about our world today-read this book. It exemplifies the ugliness of war and nation conquest. I lived in Macedonia for over 3 years. This bo.ok gave me great in-sight of the land and brutality of 300 BC and 2024.

Writing gives you insight on all the happenings at that time!!

[Diarmuid Angland · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great history of the two most famous Macedonians. The premise is that Phillip was a great king whilst Alexander was an amazing general. The insight the book brings is the impact the divinity of Alexander had on his empire, his soldiers and his thinking, as well as a desire to outdo everyone who had come before.

A fantastic book, only criticism would be there were a number of odd modern day comparison sentences that really didn’t add anything scattered around the book.

The take away for me was that Alexander’s empire was no such thing but instead was an army of a conqueror on the move, whereas Philip was a far more impressive strategist than I had appreciated.

[Jeffrey A. Raff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phillip or Alexander

This excellent and very enjoyable book compares the deeds and reigns of Alexander the Great and his father Philllip the Second of Macedonia. He describes their lives and wars and then compares their accomplisments and legacies. His conclusions are original and well argued. For anyone interested in this period of history but don't expect a military history for the wars, while well described, are not presented in detail. It is more a political and personal study of these two rulers. Most of all I found it very well written and a pleasure to read.

[Sharon Hague · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful book, packed with information.

King Philip II, father of Alexander-the-Great, has often been overlooked in favour of his famous son. However, as this book shows, Philip's contribution to the training of his Macedonian army, gave Alexander a crack fighting force.

There are strong similarities between father and son. Both had the ability to devise ingenious military strategies, and both were pragmatic in their approach to politics.

It is a fascinating insight into men of genius.

[Grant McKeown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, but very little focus on the cultural/social/economic effects of Phillip II and Alexander's conquest. Worthington did include section on these topics, but they were significantly shorter than his battle narratives. Still a great read and a great book if you are interested in Phillip II or Alexander and want to know more.

[Sumit Pal · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very descriptive journey of two of the greatest rulers the world has witnessed and the comparisons of their respective achievements and failures. Also knowledge of a lot of other historic events taking place in the backdrop is also acquired.

[Connor Folsom · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun and informative reward that depicts the legend and rise to power of one of the world's greatest warriors, king, and leader. With accurate and interesting descriptions this book is perfect for any history lover and college reader.

[Robert Ellis · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was all right for an historical survey; I could have done without the contemporizing. It felt over pretty quick, so I'm not sure it was an in-depth examination, but I'm not expert on the topic. Alexander is painted in an ugly light here, but maybe that is for the best. Learn from his mistakes.

[Jose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly political and adventurous. You don't realize how much Philip II shaped the Macedonian Empire until reading the detailed findings from Mr. Worthington. We all know Alexander the Great, but Philip II has earned his place in history as an intelligent, battle-hardened leader.