Abstract The paper shows that Philip began his reign as leader of a poor, war-torn land on the outskirts of mainland Greece and by his death he had strengthened the previously weak central government, enlarged and modernized his army and implemented economic and social reform. The paper traces the life and career of Philip after his father's untimely death. It provides answers to the questions: Do Philip's considerable achievements make him worthy of the title 'The Great' that his son Alexander won by his legendry conquests and: Was Alexander just carrying out his father's plan, the hard work already having been done, or were his conquests down to his own skill, drive and vision?
From the Paper ?In conclusion, however key Philip's accomplishments were in allowing Alexander to conquer the mighty Persian Empire it was Alexander, not Philip, who, by his superb skills as a general, his vision and daring, sometimes rash risk taking, was the one that did the conquering. And it was the conquering that won Alexander the title "The Great". In rugby, no matter how impressive a run, how many tackles broken or defenders sidestepped by a player setting up a try, it is the man that takes the ball over the line that gets the glory. For this reason, I believe Philip does not deserve the title "Great" even though his deeds undoubtedly were."
