
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
522522 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

3,190 Listeners

4,263 Listeners

1,834 Listeners

1,544 Listeners

1,853 Listeners

1,224 Listeners

4,805 Listeners

6,317 Listeners

458 Listeners

5,071 Listeners

415 Listeners

3,235 Listeners

14,605 Listeners

1,830 Listeners

265 Listeners