Who fielded the finest Macedonian-style army: Philip II of Macedon, Alexander the Great, the Successor kings, or Pyrrhus of Epirus? I have a Pyrrhic army & know I can modify it by adding & deleting units, to make any from the menu:
url=https://postimg.cc/8jqq433z]
Philip created the system—sarissa phalanx, Companion cavalry, hypaspists and a true combined-arms army.
Alexander inherited it and used it with unmatched generalship, mobility and tactical daring.
The Successor armies made it bigger and more elaborate—more pikes, more cavalry, more specialist troops, more elephants—but did they improve it, or just make it less flexible?
Then there's Pyrrhus, often called the best commander after Alexander. Why? Did he preserve the ideal balance: phalanx, cavalry, flexible infantry, and elephants—all still working together as a true battlefield system?
So what mattered most:
Generalship?
Strategic vision?
Army composition?
Flexibility on the battlefield?
Did Macedonian warfare peak with Alexander—or did Pyrrhus and the Successors take it even further?
url=https://postimg.cc/8sCQzLMS]
paints a legend from the Trojan Wars.
