
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Murray tackles this question from Juan; 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 were the commanders after Alexander just not as good? I'm mostly thinking about the pike phalanx but if there's any information on the light infantry or cavalry troops I'd love to learn!
Like the podcast? Why not become a patron? https://www.patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast
By The History Network4.3
526526 ratings
Murray tackles this question from Juan; 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 were the commanders after Alexander just not as good? I'm mostly thinking about the pike phalanx but if there's any information on the light infantry or cavalry troops I'd love to learn!
Like the podcast? Why not become a patron? https://www.patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast

3,196 Listeners

4,312 Listeners

4,404 Listeners

1,867 Listeners

1,855 Listeners

1,261 Listeners

4,791 Listeners

4,029 Listeners

6,308 Listeners

5,239 Listeners

3,358 Listeners

537 Listeners

1,920 Listeners

269 Listeners

350 Listeners