AWA145 - Were Philip and Alexander uniquely competent?

<p>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!</p> <p>Like the podcast? Why not become a patron?<br /> <a href= "https://www.patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast">https://www.patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast" target= "_blank" rel="noopener"><img src= "https://assets.libsyn.com/secure/show/91136/PATREON_Libsyn.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="39" /></a></p>