Are they overrated?

>>2004297

Nope, the macedonians were the greatest conquerors that came out of Europe.

I can understand why plebs and lower class scum would join the army, but why in the world would anyone in the Aristocracy fight?

From my understanding much of the cavalry in the Macedonian army was nobility.

>>2004318
for glory. they wanted to copy the heroes and legends in their myths. alex did too, thats why he went all the way up into bactria and india pursuing some crap about dionysus i think. he wanted to find some thing to do with him on the other side of the world or emulate it, i really cant remember, been years since did this in school.

guess you get alot of money maybe too?

>>2004318
Aristocracy came from warriors. Without martial might they'll lose their status.

>>2004307

not as good as those polish hussars.

>>2004307
erm, what about rome?

>>2004662
Their empire arose over centuries of slow, steady expansion. That entails conquest, but more of it was through consolidation and rule. In contrast, the Macedonian empire reached its height in a single generation. The Romans were a better empire and better rulers, but Alexander was the better conqueror.

>>2004682

or the persian satrapys and tribes whatever were just very good at being conquered/submitting.

>>2004682
Don't forget that Phillip laid the groundwork, he consolidated Macedonia from tribes to a nation and he conquered Greece. Alexander got as far as he did because of Phillips planning. Either way I still agree with you in the span of 50 years Macedonia went from a backward and barbarian country to a superpower, Rome didn't do that.

Sometimes i dream about cheese

>>2005504
guess he was one that largely developed the style of warfare that put an end to the effectiveness of the phalanx as a standalone strategy, using a more diversified force. (with the influence of epaminondas)

>>2005596
underrated post